[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Unemployment (North West Norfolk)

Henry Bellingham: What change there has been in the level of unemployment in North West Norfolk constituency since 2010.

Esther McVey: The claimant count in my hon. Friend’s constituency has fallen by nearly 60% since 2010, to just over 900.

Henry Bellingham: That is encouraging and unemployment in my constituency has come down by a staggering 908 in the past year, giving hope to a large number of families. Following the story in The Sunday Times last weekend, will the Minister tell the House what support her Department is giving to people seeking employment?

Esther McVey: I read the article in The Sunday Times about an episode of “Dispatches” that is being filmed in contact centres. Contact centres do not handle emergency hardship payments, as those are dealt with by Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus staff are fully trained and no one is sanctioned without being told about hardship payments. Awareness about benefit advances is being raised at the moment, and new posters and leaflets will be coming out in March once claimants have passed on their opinions and worked with the Department to get them right.

Young People Seeking Employment or Education

Stephen Metcalfe: What support his Department provides to young people seeking employment or education.

Rehman Chishti: What support his Department provides to young people seeking employment or education.

Esther McVey: Work coaches offer all claimants tailored support from day one of their claim. Claimants in need of experience are guided towards work experience or sector-based work academies, and those who require more focused training are supported through traineeships and apprenticeships.

Stephen Metcalfe: One barrier to young people seeking employment is that they do not necessarily have the correct skills required to take up the opportunities on offer. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues in the Department for Education and across the Jobcentre Plus network to ensure that local schools and colleges are aware of the skills that local employers need?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right and we must make sure that young people are properly equipped for the world of work. I know of an ex-businessman who ran a family business in printing. He knew who came through his door, which included young people who he wanted to give a job to, but they needed what people call “soft skills” and I like to call “core skills” for employability. We are working with the Department for Education on a new careers and enterprise company,
	and through the Inspiring The Future initiative young people are meeting business people to get a feel for what business and employment is all about, and we must support them as best we can. As my hon. Friend will know, we have increased work experience considerably and introduced sector-based work academies to that end.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister welcome the initiative that has been set up in my constituency with support from DWP and the local Gillingham football club, along with Medway Watersports, to provide young people with skills and positive experiences to assist them in securing employment or further training?

Esther McVey: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is working closely with Gillingham football club and its chairman, Paul Scally, who recently launched that help for young people, which is key. Various community and sports groups up and down the country are helping young people through the flexible support fund, and that should be highlighted. As many people as possible coming together to support young people into employment is key.

David Hanson: If things are going so well, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment has risen by more than 33,000 in the last two months, including a 10% rise in my constituency, which is not too far from hers?

Esther McVey: I would like to get the record straight for the right hon. Gentleman because youth unemployment has fallen on the year, and has fallen considerably since 2010 by nearly 200,000. That is down to the work of this Government. There was a small rise of 3,000 in the last month, but the trend for unemployment is consistently downwards and the claimant count has fallen every month for the past 38 months—the Opposition would die to be able to deliver youth unemployment like that.

Seema Malhotra: This week, at an event in my constituency, young people will be talking about how the world can improve for them, especially in terms of access to work. Why does the Minister think that youth unemployment has been rising while overall unemployment has been falling in recent months?

Esther McVey: Again, I need to correct the record. It would be helpful if Opposition Members looked at the true youth unemployment numbers, which are down on the year and down nearly a fifth since 2010. Opposition Members delivered an increase in youth unemployment of 45%. Please stop scaremongering, get the facts right and go and help young people into jobs.

Stephen Timms: I hope the Minister will at least take some note of her own UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which points out that the UK now has German levels of adult unemployment, but eurozone levels of youth unemployment. Some 40% of unemployed people in the UK are under 25. Youth Contract wage incentives failed and were scrapped eight months early last summer. Does she have any new plans to tackle the very high level of youth unemployment—nearly three times the level of adult unemployment—which,
	as my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out and contrary to what she has been telling us, has gone up in the past couple of months, not down?

Esther McVey: What can I say to Opposition Members? They seem blind to the truth. The fact of the matter is that youth unemployment was going through the roof—there was an increase of 45%—and this Government have brought it down by nearly 200,000 since 2010. Working with businesses, we brought in an array of support, from work experience to sector-based work academies and wage incentives. We brought in a whole plethora of support. Some worked better than others—that is correct—but the aim and the outcome remains: youth unemployment is down by nearly 200,000 since Labour left office.

Stephen Timms: There is not much evidence of soft skills in that answer. The part of the UK where we have seen real progress on youth unemployment has been Wales. Youth unemployment used to be higher in Wales. Thanks to Jobs Growth Wales it is not higher any longer. Is it not now clear that for young people to benefit fully from the recovery that is under way, we need the young people’s job guarantee right across the UK?

Esther McVey: I am afraid it is the right hon. Gentleman who has soft skills. I have core skills in telling the truth: youth unemployment is down 200,000 since he left office. We do not need a job guarantee scheme, which does not work and costs an incredible amount of money. The work experience scheme we brought in is delivering better results at a twentieth of the cost. You bring in Labour, you pay a lot more for a lot less results.

Benefit Cap (Employment)

Adam Afriyie: What assessment he has made of the effect of the benefit cap on long-term unemployment.

David Davies: What assessment he has made of the effect of the benefit cap on rates of employment.

Iain Duncan Smith: The benefit cap is having a positive impact on people’s lives. I believe it is encouraging them to find work. The statistics show that. [Interruption.] Yes, they do. Those affected by the cap are 41% more likely to go into work than a similar uncapped group. It is under this Government that we are seeing long-term unemployment fall to its lowest level since 2009. The employment rate, at 73.2%, has never been higher.

Adam Afriyie: I had good cause this weekend to reflect on where I grew up. It breaks my heart to think that so many people spend such a long time on long-term welfare and state handouts. In Windsor, the number of people claiming benefits for more than a year has fallen by almost two-thirds, to just 70 people. That lifts my heart. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a moral and social imperative to ensure that people are able to make their way from welfare to work and have a meaningful life?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is an element about fairness: before we introduced the cap, about £9 million a year was being spent on fewer than 300 families. When asked, 73% of the public support the benefit cap and 77% agree it is fair for no household to get more than the average working household after tax. It seems like the only group that absolutely opposes the cap is the Labour party.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our changes to benefits regulations have ensured that record numbers of people are now in work, and that this coalition Government are delivering jobs, prosperity and growth and that the only alternative from Labour Members is more debt, deficit and dole queues?

Iain Duncan Smith: As ever, my hon. Friend puts it succinctly—but that does not stop me answering his question. He is right. There are three figures that are really important. The Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), talked about bringing down unemployment. Under this Government, the International Labour Organisation 12-month-plus employment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds—the hardest to help—is down 59,000 on the year and 16,000 on the election; the 24-month-plus rate is down 30,000 on the year and 2,000 on the quarter; and of those in social housing, never, since records began, have we had so many households in work. That is the real reason for the Government’s long-term economic plan.

Meg Hillier: Those on both sides of the House agree that it is important to encourage and support people into work, but under the new benefit cap announced by the Prime Minister, there is not a single three or four-bedroom property that somebody could rent when they need that safety net.

Iain Duncan Smith: I think the hon. Lady is talking about the Conservative manifesto proposal—I am not sure what other cap she could be talking about.

Meg Hillier: indicated assent.

Iain Duncan Smith: She is nodding, but that proposal only brings the benefit cap back in line with average earnings, which are £23,000.
	Through the cap, the Government have delivered fairness to the system and an incentive to go back to work, and as a direct result, more people are going back to work than ever before. We are asking people to take responsibility for their lives, just as those who are working and are not within the cap take responsibility for their lives.

Emily Thornberry: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to meet a constituent of mine whom I met last week? She has polio, she fell down the stairs and broke her leg, and now she has to have a knee replacement. She is on benefits and has two children. The rent on their property is £400, and the benefit cap is £500, which means they are living on £100 a week. Would he like to meet them?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am happy to speak to anybody the hon. Lady wants me to speak to about this matter. I believe that the benefits system in the UK helps those in the greatest difficulty—there is plenty of access to things such as hardship funds if that lady is having difficulty temporarily after breaking her leg—but if it is the hon. Lady’s belief that a Labour Government would increase spending on welfare, perhaps she could encourage those on her Front Bench to be honest about it and say so.

Benefit Sanctions

Frank Field: What the average monthly value has been of benefit sanctions imposed since May 2010.

Esther McVey: The Department does not make an estimate of the amount of benefit withheld as a result of sanctions. The sanctions system is in place to ensure claimants comply with reasonable requirements in order to move off benefits and into work.

Frank Field: Although the Department might not make estimates, outside experts do, and they now calculate that the amount of sanctions applied is greater than all the fines that magistrates courts in this country impose, but a fine in a magistrates court is imposed only after someone has been able to put their case. Might not the Government consider something like a yellow card system so that before a fine is exercised, people have the chance to bring in outside advisers to help them put their case more effectively?

Esther McVey: The Government do not make estimates because they would be wildly inaccurate, like the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given. That is because only a maximum figure could be given that did not take into account hardship payments, which could be 80%, or that people already had a job, and there would be so many inconsistencies. The last Government—he was a Minister in the Department—did not make such estimates either.

Richard Harrington: Question 5, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, no. I was calling the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) to ask about Question 4. Several hon. Members were on their feet in respect of this question.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that it is important for us to acknowledge the role that sanctions play as the ultimate backstop in support of our welfare system, particularly as 70% of claimants say that they are more likely to abide by the rules when they know that their benefits are at risk if they do not?

Esther McVey: Sanctions have been around since the benefit came into being, to ensure compliance, to enable the Government to have a backdrop to the social security they provide, and to enable the support to be matched by work to enable people to go into a job. As the secretary-general of the OECD said:
	“The United Kingdom is a textbook case of best-practice on how good labour and product markets can support growth and job creation.”

Debbie Abrahams: Freedom of information requests to the Department for Work and Pensions have revealed that of the reviews of 49 deaths of social security claimants, 33 called for improvements into how the DWP operates nationally and locally. What changes have been introduced, and how have they been associated with sanctions on claimants?

Esther McVey: As the hon. Lady will know, we are always improving what we do and always making things better. We brought in the Matt Oakley review to look at better communications, and we work with claimants always to ensure that sanctions are applied only correctly. We know that the vast majority of people work within the system. For employment and support allowance claimants, over 99.4% work within the rules, and with jobseeker’s allowance claimants, it is over 94%. It has to work, but we always look to see how we can get it better.

Paul Burstow: Given how poorly served people with mental health problems are by the Work programme, and given the fact that the Minister told me in an answer that the Department does not currently have available to it information about the proportion of people with a mental health problem who are sanctioned, is it not time that the Government did that research and made sure that we had back-to-work programmes to help people with mental health problems?

Esther McVey: We know that if people are on ESA and if they have mental health conditions, over 99.4% of the total are not sanctioned, as I said, so only 0.6% are. Again, we look to see how we work with people; and for very vulnerable people there is clear guidance on what counts as good cause, so they would know how and why they would not be sanctioned. We always know we need to do more. We have various pilots going on that seek better to understand people with mental health conditions.

Mr Speaker: I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop—but it does not!

Eilidh Whiteford: Over 143,000 benefit sanctions were imposed in Scotland in the two years from October 2012, and one in four food bank users are using them because of delays in the benefit system. Yet today we read in the Financial Timesthat the Tories are planning to cut 30,000 jobs from the Department for Work and Pensions if they win the next election, most of them in the nations and regions. Is this not a recipe for further chaos and misery? Do not both claimants and DWP staff deserve better?

Esther McVey: For the sake of brevity and clarity, those figures are not true at all.

Mr Speaker: That was exemplary brevity and clarity, I must concede.

Child Support Agency

Richard Harrington: What progress has been made on reform of the Child Support Agency.

Steve Webb: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the 2012 child maintenance scheme is now open to all applicants and is delivering a more efficient statutory service, including the option of direct payments, for those who cannot make a family-based arrangement. From January 2015, closure of existing CSA cases began.

Richard Harrington: I thank the Minister and want to ask him a further question. For most MPs starting in 2010, this issue provided a lot of constituency casework for us, and the agency in question was often felt not to be fit for purpose, despite the good intentions in setting it up. What progress have the Government made in dealing with the fraud and error that has been so well publicised as existing in the system?

Steve Webb: We recognise that further incremental reform would not deal with the long and deep-seated problems with the Child Support Agency. That is why we are closing all the cases on the existing system and moving towards a much more streamlined system. To provide one example of the improvements, we now get data direct from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rather than having to wait for non-resident parents to provide payslips, so we have prompt and accurate information to avoid arrears building up.

Nicholas Soames: May I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the substantial reforms that they have made to the Child Support Agency, whose service as it was a few years ago is unrecognisable to us now?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. We want to encourage people to sort things out for themselves whenever that is possible, but when they do use the new system, we offer a much better service than we did. For example, we now have what is known in the jargon as a web-based portal. People can log on and see how their accounts stand, and the system is so good that some have likened it to online banking.

Discretionary Housing Payments

Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on people subject to the under-occupancy penalty of a reduction in funding for discretionary housing payments in 2015-16.

Mark Harper: We have actually increased the funding for discretionary housing payments to help those who are affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy, and, as the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, it will be protected in 2015-16.

Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which has said that any degradation of discretionary housing payments will threaten to “cut the parachute cord” that keeps so many vulnerable families from the homelessness and destitution created
	by the foul bedroom tax? Will he give an absolute guarantee that the payments will be not only maintained in real terms, but possibly increased when necessary, and ring-fenced?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the level of discretionary housing payments relating to the removal of the spare room subsidy would be maintained in 2015-16, as the Chancellor said in the autumn statement. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order about questions and answers last week. I think that my answer did relate to his question, and perhaps he should have listened to it.

Anne McIntosh: What happens when district councils do not use the whole discretionary housing payment fund? Is it carried over? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that authorities spend the full amount that they are entitled to spend?

Mark Harper: That is a good question. Last year, two thirds of local authorities did not spend all the money that the Government allocated to them. If the money is not spent, it returns to central Government and to whence it came—that is, to the taxpayer

Andrew Gwynne: What has the Minister got to say to my constituent Mr Cocks, who has not only lived in his two-bedroom house in Denton for more than six decades, but was born there? This is not a house; it is his home. Last year he qualified for a discretionary housing payment, but he has been refused one for next year. Is this not yet another example of how cruel the bedroom tax can be, given that in a few years my constituent will be exempt from it anyway?

Mark Harper: As I have said, the Government have made discretionary housing payments available to local authorities so that they can take specific facts into account, because they are obviously better acquainted with what is happening on the ground. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is that he should talk to his local authority.

Greg Mulholland: Will my hon. Friend and his Conservative ministerial colleagues stop blocking the Affordable Homes Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and allow it to be passed before the end of this Parliament, so that some of these issues can be resolved?

Mark Harper: I am afraid that the estimated cost of the Affordable Homes Bill is about £1,000 million. As well as having to find the money to pay for it, the hon. Member for St Ives would have to identify the other benefits that would need to be cut to enable us to stay within the welfare cap to which both Government parties and the Opposition have signed up.

Helen Goodman: Each year, local authorities are spending nearly £200 million on adapting properties for disabled people. Then the Government come along and try to move them out of
	those properties by imposing the bedroom tax. Will the Minister now admit that that is a prime example of Tory welfare waste?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady still has not found anyone apart from herself to take up that slogan. She will know that £25 million of discretionary housing payment was made available specifically to support disabled people who are in adapted accommodation, so that the local authorities do not have to move them. That money is available, and local authorities should use it for the purpose for which it was intended.

Unemployment (UK and other European Countries)

Bob Blackman: What comparative assessment he has made of unemployment rates in the UK and other European countries.

David Rutley: What comparative assessment he has made of unemployment rates in the UK and other European countries.

Iain Duncan Smith: The UK currently has the 3rd lowest unemployment rate in the European Union, and it has fallen faster than that of any other G7 economy in the past year. Thanks to welfare reform and our long-term economic plan, businesses are creating jobs, and 1.85 million more people are in work than in 2010. For interest, that is more than the total population of Estonia.

Bob Blackman: The Opposition like to ally themselves to France, so I would like my right hon. Friend to inform the House where we stand in comparison with our neighbours in France.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do recall that the Opposition extolled the virtues of the French Government and what they were doing. It is worth bearing in mind therefore what would have happened if they had followed the French example—which I think they still plan to do. If the UK had the same employment rate as France, employment would be 3.5 million lower in this country. If the UK had the same unemployment rate as France, unemployment would be nearly 1.5 million higher. But there you go—the truth is that every time a Labour Government leave office, they leave unemployment higher than when they arrived.

David Rutley: I welcome the steps my right hon. Friend is taking to create jobs and reduce unemployment, which has fallen by 40% in Macclesfield over the last year. I have recently been on a delegation to Spain where we discussed the challenges they are facing of 25% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital for the UK to stick to its current course for the years ahead?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, I do. This Government—under the Conservative party—with our long-term economic plan, will stick to those plans, so we would continue to see unemployment fall. Spain has taken huge strides in trying to make changes, but they still have more to do, as they said to me, to deregulate the ways in which they work, but none the less they are at least making real
	efforts to do so, and they look to us for some examples. Our unemployment and employment rates are better, but I would like to think they are trying very hard to get there.

Grahame Morris: May I remind the Secretary of State that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which was set up by Ministers, has pointed out that 40% of unemployed people in Britain are under 25? There are 550 unemployed young people in my constituency. Is not the Secretary of State missing an opportunity to rebalance the regional economy, to address the skills shortages and to target resources at those areas that need it the most?

Iain Duncan Smith: Absolutely, but the point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that I would love for somebody on his side to get up and say, “The economy under Labour crashed with a 6% fall in GDP.” Does he honestly think that had no effect on his constituents? [Interruption.]Since then, we have got unemployment down below 2010 levels and got employment levels up, and we are doing our best to reskill people through work experience and so forth—[Interruption.]—and for all the shouting on the Opposition Benches, they blame everybody else for the crash but they do not give us the credit for the changes and improvements.

Kelvin Hopkins: Would the Secretary of State like to thank the former Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Hopkins is on his feet, seeking to ask a question in his normally robust but courteous manner, and being shouted down by a Member on his own Benches. That is not satisfactory. I want to hear Mr Hopkins; the people of Luton North want to hear Mr Hopkins, the nation wants to hear Mr Hopkins.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for that help. Would the Secretary of State like to thank the former Labour Government for keeping Britain out of the euro, which is the principal cause of the devastation of the southern European members of the eurozone?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is a very good thing that we are out of the euro—I am very happy about that. As far as credit is to be given, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been opposed to entry into the euro and my party was, under my leadership, absolutely opposed and continues to be so, and I am very pleased about that. May I finish by reminding the House of what even those in Europe say when they look at us? The OECD said of the UK that
	“the performance of the labour market has been remarkable!”
	That is the point: the rest of Europe says the UK has done better on employment and unemployment than anybody else, and that is down to the Government, thanks to their long-term economic plan. We have got it right; they have got it wrong.

“Not Just For Boys” Campaign

George Hollingbery: What progress he has made on the “Not Just For Boys” campaign.

Esther McVey: With record employment and vacancy levels, the “Not Just For Boys” campaign is intended to encourage young girls and women to consider a career in an industry where they are traditionally under-represented. After just under a month, some of the UK’s and the world’s leading businesses are on board, as are schools, business women, companies such as BT, Microsoft and Diageo and organisations including Opportunity Now, the Construction Industry Training Board and Be Onsite. I could continue, but for the sake of brevity, I will sit down.

George Hollingbery: A recent OECD report made it clear that gender differences among high-performing students remain stubbornly high in science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects. In 2012, only 12% of women entering university chose to study in science-related fields, compared with 39% of men, with all that that entails for women’s long-term job security and levels of pay. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this simply underlines how incredibly important it is that campaigns such as her “Not Just For Boys” campaign should succeed?

Esther McVey: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The campaign came about after we looked at where the jobs were going to be over the next decade. There will be 12 million jobs in fields such as IT, engineering and manufacturing, yet only 7% of girls were going into those subjects, so we knew that we had to do more—hence the campaign. Businesses came on board, as did women wanting to be role models. The Department for Education should also take some credit here, because there are now 10,000 more girls studying STEM subjects at A-level than there were in 2010.

Universal Credit

Nigel Mills: What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

Iain Duncan Smith: We have begun the national roll-out of universal credit. Those plans are on track, and universal credit is now available in nearly 150 jobcentre areas for single claimants and in nearly 100 areas for couples and families. Universal credit will be available in over 500 jobcentre areas—seven in 10—by the end of the year, and it will be rolled out to all our 714 jobcentres next year.

Nigel Mills: In contrast to some reports today, the staff in the jobcentres in my constituency are looking forward to the roll-out of universal credit because they know the advantages it will bring to local jobseekers. Has my right hon. Friend made a recent assessment of the benefits of universal credit following the roll-out so far?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have indeed. From what I have read of the reports my hon. Friend mentions, every single point made in them is wrong and misleading. We will be making our position clear on that. The analysis that he asks for has shown that the benefits of universal credit are statistically significant. Findings now show
	that, compared with similar claimants on jobseeker’s allowance, universal credit claimants spend more time looking for work, enter work more quickly and spend more time in work. They also end up earning more.

Anne Begg: The roll-out so far has been to specific groups of people with particular characteristics. That is partly because, to put it uncharitably, the original IT system does not work. If I were being charitable, I would say that it worked but with greatly reduced functionality compared with what was originally planned. However, the Department is piloting a digital solution in Sutton, Surrey, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell us how that is going. When are we likely to get the results of that pilot? Can he tell us when the digital solution is going to be rolled out, given that it was meant to be the great white hope for saving universal credit?

Iain Duncan Smith: The IT system is exactly the same system, and it works in all categories. The difference is that we have rightly decided, in accordance with the Public Accounts Committee’s request, to roll this out stage by stage—we have been told that this is the correct way to do it—rather than trying to rush it, as was done with the tax credit system, which crashed. The hon. Lady mentioned the digital solution. Digital development and the online service are merging together, because the live service has many elements that will be used by the digital service anyway. This is a merging of the two services, and we will be reporting on that as we go along. It is successfully rolling out at the moment and expanding at the same time. I would be very happy if the hon. Lady wanted to go and visit it.

Steven Baker: I congratulate the Government on their agile approach to the roll-out of universal credit. Given that it is expected to come to Wycombe, along with every other constituency, in the course of the next year, will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the advantages that our constituents can expect from it?

Iain Duncan Smith: Apart from the technical changes, the reality is that at the moment when someone falls unemployed then takes a part-time job they have to sign off and go through the whole rigmarole of claiming tax credits with no one talking to them. Under universal credit, they do not sign off. They stay with their adviser, who helps them enormously in negotiating their way through all their job applications. There is therefore a human interface, which is much better and which will help people who are unemployed and who have difficulties. People can look forward to that.

Work Programme (Over 50s)

Bridget Phillipson: What proportion of people over the age of 50 who have been referred to the Work programme have found work as a result.

Esther McVey: The objective of the Work programme is to move more people into sustainable employment, and so the available data relate to people’s job outcomes, not starts, which
	means they have been in work for three or six months. To September 2014, there were 300,410 referrals of people aged 50 and over, resulting in 42,750 job outcomes.

Bridget Phillipson: The Work programme is failing older people, with the figures the Minister has just given meaning that only 13% of people aged 55 to 59 have found a lasting job as a result of the programme. What would she say to the constituents I meet, who are desperate to work and doing all that is asked of them yet feel badly let down by her Government?

Esther McVey: The Work programme is the largest programme of its kind, helping people into work on an unparalleled scale. It is superseding all the expected levels and targets; it is better than anything that has gone before it.

Tony Baldry: With the Banbury and Bicester job clubs, we seek to help people who are out of work to get back into the world of work, irrespective of age. Am I not right in thinking that 50,000 over-50s who are in work now were not in work last year? So 50,000 over-50s have found work in just the past year, and it is right that we should not write anyone off simply because of their age.

Esther McVey: My right hon. Friend is correct about that. We are seeing what extra support we can give to the over-50s, which is why, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, we have brought together the “Fuller Working Lives” document. It is also why we are looking at: how we can do extra IT; how we can do extra CVs and résumés; and how we can have older worker champions going into business to really sell the benefits of older employees, because it is key that they should be there to share their experience.

Fiona Mactaggart: Can the Minister explain why the Work programme works less well for women over 50 than for any other group in the community? According to her Department’s own figures, just over one in 10 women over 50 actually finds work as a result of the Work programme.

Esther McVey: I am not really sure where the hon. Lady has got her figures from. I have the figures in front of me and the one in 10 would refer to the number of employment and support allowance new claimants who found lasting work—that compares to a figure of one in 25 when they first joined and is well above the expected average, which would have been about one in 14. But we must remember that these people are some of the most difficult and hardest to help into work, which is why we have put this in place to support them. [Laughter.]

Nick de Bois: When the Minister joins me on Wednesday in my constituency for her meeting with employers at my jobs fair, she will learn that many of them have started and wish to continue apprenticeships for the over-50s. Does she see a role for the Government in extending the programme to over-50s, with sufficient demand?

Esther McVey: I do indeed, and what my hon. Friend is doing there is incredible, supporting people of all ages through job fairs. As there were peals of laughter from
	Opposition Members, they obviously do not understand how the Work programme works and who goes on it, because it is there specifically to help those who are the hardest to help into work and to give them extra help and support.

Work programme (Disabled People)

Mary Glindon: How many disabled people have moved into work as a result of the Work programme.

Esther McVey: The objective of the Work programme is to move people into sustainable employment, and so the available data relate to people’s job outcomes, not starts, which means they have been in work for three or six months. As of September 2014, there were 596,640 referrals for people with a disability indicator and 78,480 job outcomes paid.

Mary Glindon: What does the Minister have to say in response to the recent Mind report, which stated:
	“Current government back-to-work schemes are failing people with mental health problems because they are not built on a proper understanding of why people have ended up out of work and what support they will need to move closer to work.”?

Esther McVey: Mind also looked at the fact that all previous job schemes did not do enough for those with mental health conditions, who are the hardest to help and support. The Work programme tailors support to the individual, looking at an individual’s barriers into work. We have helped thousands of people with mental health conditions into work, instead of writing them off. There is more to do, so we are working and doing extra pilots to see how we can better engage with people with mental health conditions.

Henry Smith: I was very grateful to the Secretary of State for visiting Crawley last month to see how successfully the Work programme was operating. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the staff of Royal British Legion Industries who deliver the Work programme in my constituency for paying great attention to getting disabled people and people with mental health conditions back into work?

Esther McVey: Indeed I will join my hon. Friend in celebrating the work of the Royal British Legion and all the other charities and voluntary groups up and down the country as they try to ensure that there is a personalised plan and support for people looking for work. They do an invaluable job, and the people who go into such a field have a passion for getting people into work.

Barry Sheerman: One of the greatest disabilities that stops young people getting a job is autism. Is the Minister aware that autism is predicted to cost this country £32 billion a year? Will she stop for a moment being the “hard-hearted Hannah” of the Front Bench and be a little more compassionate about disabled young people looking for work?

Esther McVey: I understand a lot about autism and the extra support, help and work that we need to do. That is why the Secretary of State and I introduced the
	campaign, Disability Confident, which reaches out to employers and says, “Listen to the needs of the people and find out what we can do and how we can best work with these people.” I do hope that the hon. Gentleman’s comment was not sexist, as I have had very many such comments from the Opposition Benches.

Stephen Mosley: One highlight from my first term in Parliament was meeting a gentleman who had spent 10 years out of work on disability benefits because of depression. Through the Work programme, he got a full-time job. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Work programme can give disabled people hope and opportunities for the future, whereas, in the past, they were left on benefits for life?

Esther McVey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. What this is all about is understanding how we can help people, especially those with disabilities, and getting them into work. I am glad to say that, over the past year, employment for people with disabilities has risen by 141,000. Nearly half a million people with disabilities have set up their own business. That is what a Conservative Government and a coalition Government can do.

Kate Green: A moment ago, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), I heard the Minister say that the Work programme was exceeding all its targets. Just 7% of those on employment and support allowance in the Work programme have got into jobs, compared with the tender document that said that, by year 2, a 15% success rate would be achieved. The programme is not achieving even half that. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are stuck in a queue waiting for a work capability assessment with no idea when they will be reassessed. The Access to Work programme, which should help people get into work and get on at work, is supporting fewer people today than when Labour left office in 2010. It is no wonder that the bill for disability benefits is set to be as much as £10 billion higher, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Is the Minister satisfied with that catalogue of failure and waste?

Esther McVey: Once again, let me give the Opposition the latest and correct figures. One in 10 of ESA new claimants have found lasting work, which is above anything achieved in the past. What we expected was a level of one in 14, which was already there. Disability employment is up by 141,000 in the past year, and it now stands at more than 3.1 million. We are supporting disabled people into work and into education, and we are proud of our record.

Road Traffic Accidents at Work

Meg Munn: What assessment he has made of the performance of the Health and Safety Executive in reducing road traffic accidents at work.

Mark Harper: The Department for Transport leads on specific legislation relating to road safety, but the Health and Safety Executive does work with the Department for Transport and its agencies to produce joint guidance on driving at work.
	I understand from statistics produced by the Department for Transport that, in comparison with other countries, the UK remains one of the road safety leaders in the world.

Meg Munn: More than three times as many people die when they drive for a living as they do in any other workplace. It is estimated that 20% of accidents are caused by sleepiness. Is it not time that we use the expertise that the HSE has used so well in other workplaces and apply it to people who drive for a living, and reduce the death toll from driving?

Mark Harper: I know that the hon. Lady has been interested in this issue for a number of years following a tragic death in her constituency in 2006 involving a driver with undiagnosed sleep apnoea. The Health and Safety Executive works with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and their medical teams to ensure that people driving, particularly commercially, are safe. They will continue that valuable work and I know that she will continue to raise the issue.

Topical Questions

Julie Hilling: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today I welcome regulations laid in this House to prevent migrant jobseekers from the EU from accessing universal credit if they have never worked in the UK. This is a clear reversal of the open door policy of the past under the previous Government and we are now delivering a fair system for those who work hard in Britain. It is also in line with the fact that more British people find jobs that ended under the previous Government. A higher proportion of the jobs are taken by British people, which means that more people are in work. With welfare having fallen in real terms and a fairer pension system, this Government, as we come to a close, have a record of which to be proud.

Julie Hilling: An undercover reporter from “Dispatches” has found that staff in the Bolton universal credit call centre, where the system crashed nine times in 20 days, have been told not to inform claimants about same-day advance payment, the flexible support fund or the hardship fund, even though payments are taking at least five weeks to arrive. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the correct way for staff to be told to behave and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Iain Duncan Smith: I did read the reports about that and they are wrong. The people the programme talked to are not responsible for talking to claimants about hardship funds. The people who talk about hardship funds are in the jobcentres and I can tell the hon. Lady categorically—she is more than welcome to look at it—that the advice given to them is explicit. They are meant to engage with people immediately if they have any suspicion or if they are asked about this. We are putting up posters in jobcentres to make sure that those people are aware of that and we are also ensuring that all letters on any sanction contain the elements that are relevant. The programme is wrong on this issue.

Philip Hollobone: Since 2010, unemployment has halved in Kettering. Which Minister is responsible month on month for announcing the big reductions in unemployment we have seen and will she step forward to the Dispatch Box to accept the thanks of a grateful nation?

Esther McVey: Obviously, I would like to thank my lovely assistants, who are sitting behind me, in a bit of a role reversal. We are led by the Secretary of State, who 10 years ago wrote about “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain”, and about what a compassionate Conservative Government would want to do by providing a ladder to help people who might have been left in despair to come forward, get a job and prosper. So, to him!

Rachel Reeves: Since our last oral questions, the time it will take fully to roll out universal credit on the basis of the latest figures has increased from 1,571 years to 1,605 years, an increase of 34 years in just 42 days. Let me ask about the effect of the policy. In its original impact assessment, the Department for Work and Pensions said that 2.8 million households would be worse off when the policy is fully rolled out. Will the Secretary of States give us his latest assessment of how many households will be entitled to less support under universal credit?

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady is nothing if not persistent with a useless question, so I will now attempt to answer. Universal credit will benefit the vast majority of households in this country. They will be better off, they will be in work more quickly, they will have longer terms in work and they will earn more. The latest work that has been done, which is independently assessed, shows that universal credit is a net benefit to society. It saves money for the Treasury and helps people. I would have thought that she would say that she backs it, but every time she gets to the Dispatch Box she spends her time trying to attack it. Does she not think that if she wants to be elected to government she needs to stand a little taller and be a little more responsible rather than just playing cheap politics?

Rachel Reeves: Instead of lecturing me, perhaps the Secretary of State would like to answer the question. The truth, revealed in a written answer by the Minister for Disabled People on 3 February, is that another 200,000 households are set to be worse off under universal credit, because to make up for all the waste and delays on universal credit, the Government are reducing the support that they provide to low-paid workers. Is not the truth that universal credit—the one policy that the Secretary of State had to build a better benefits system and make work pay—is being continually scaled down and pushed back because of his inability to deliver anything that remotely looks like being on time and on budget, and are not the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on universal credit so far just another example of his welfare waste?

Iain Duncan Smith: So there we have it: an Opposition who think that they will govern by innuendo and clap-trap. What we have heard from them is a lot of nonsense from start to finish. Listening to the hon. Lady, I wonder whether she is even the slightest bit prepared for
	government—although she will not be lucky enough to get into government. We heard another little speech from the shadow Chancellor today, in which he did not lay out one single policy on welfare, the economy or anything else at all. What we have from the Opposition—this is why they will not get into government—is constant nonsense, cheap politics and a total waste of time.

Adam Afriyie: I think we must all welcome the Institute for Fiscal Studies report last week, which said that household median incomes are almost back to pre-recession levels. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that that demonstrates that sensible, competent economic policies in government make the difference to people on the street?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is absolutely true. While the Opposition moan on about bits and pieces, the reality is that this Government have got on with getting more people into work, getting more stable incomes, and increasing incomes. The cost of living, petrol prices and food prices are falling, and people’s incomes are rising. This Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering a change and an improvement to people’s lives.

Emily Thornberry: Last week Maximus told me that a disabled constituent of mine, who had been waiting more than a year for her ESA claim to be processed, could not be given a date on which that would happen, because many more people had had to wait longer. That does not exactly fill us with confidence, given that Maximus is taking over the Atos contract for assessing personal independence payment claims, or could the Minister give us some meaningful assurance that things can only get better?

Mark Harper: To be fair to Maximus, it took over the contract only eight days ago. I remind the hon. Lady that the company that it took it over from, which had well-published problems, was appointed by a Government of the party of whom she is a member. We have been sorting out that problem. Maximus has been in place for eight days and will improve the position, but the hon. Lady needs to give it a fair crack of the whip. It will not sort out all the problems in a week.

John Pugh: Will the Minister tell the House how the outlook for women and their pensions has improved since 2010?

Steve Webb: I am very happy to brief my hon. Friend. Tackling the poorer pension outcomes for women has been a long-term priority for him and for me. Our reformed state pension will come in during 2016 and will deliver a fairer pension for women. Millions of women have been automatically enrolled and so will have a pension of their own, on top of a decent state pension—the difference, dare I say it, that a Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister makes.

Russell Brown: Responding on the issue of youth unemployment, the Minister for Employment painted a rosy picture, but she needs to take additional action in rural areas, especially
	those such as mine, where youth unemployment continues to rise month on month and the whole economy is based on agriculture and tourism. What additional support does she think she can genuinely give to areas such as mine?

Esther McVey: We have provided a whole array of support. We measured what was working best and asked how we would roll that out. By working with businesses, we found that the answer was work experience, the sector-based work academies, and apprenticeships; we have introduced 2 million of those—and it is national apprenticeship week. Getting young people into a job is about skills, including employability skills, and we are doing as much as we can.

Andrew Griffiths: My constituents in Burton and Uttoxeter welcome people coming to this country who want to work hard, pay their taxes and contribute, but they are concerned about those who come to take advantage of our benefits system. Will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that this Government take that seriously, and will he outline what we will do about it?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right. When we came into office there was an open door policy—people could come in, be unemployed and claim benefits immediately. They could claim housing benefit. Since we have been in office, we have stopped people claiming housing benefit. They must be resident for three months before they can claim jobseeker’s allowance, and after three months, if they do not have a job or the prospect of a job, they will not be allowed to stay in this country. These changes introduced by this Government and the new ones on universal credit today mean that we are serious about this. Labour never was.

Jim Cunningham: Has the Secretary of State seen the Citizens Advice report which shows that many ESA claimants are left with no money and are reliant on food banks after being told that they are too fit to claim ESA and not fit enough to claim JSA? Most have had to wait up to 10 weeks for a decision. Will the Minister look into this?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to mandatory reconsideration when somebody is found fit for work, he will know that the average length of time taken to decide one of those is 13 days, not 13 weeks. He will also know that if someone is found fit for work, they are able to claim jobseeker’s allowance and they will receive support from the jobcentre to help them get back into work.

Tony Baldry: In the past five years, how many people have moved from benefits into work? Is there any comparable five-year period since 1945 when so many people have moved off benefits into the world of work?

Iain Duncan Smith: The record now for people moving from benefits into work is remarkable. Some 600,000 have moved back into work. Peak to peak, the figure is over 800,000, and we have many, many more people back in employment. There have never been as many people in work and that number is still growing, with some 700,000 vacancies in the jobcentres every week.

Andrew McDonald: Some 35% of appellants succeed in overturning erroneously imposed JSA sanctions, yet the Minister denies setting sanction targets or expectations. If that is true, how does she explain such appalling performance statistics—a 35% failure rate that masks untold misery and grinding poverty for thousands of our fellow citizens?

Esther McVey: I have repeatedly made it clear that there are no limits, no levels and no targets for sanctions. That is the case. We ensure that quality is correct so that people get this right. There will be quality assurance targets and measures that are put in place. The figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes are not correct. Somebody might be told that they have a doubt raised against them, and from that doubt, though they have not been sanctioned, 50% will end up never having a sanction, less than 10% will go on to reconsiderations, and much less than that will go to appeal.

Chloe Smith: Very good progress has been made both nationally and locally in getting unemployment and youth unemployment down. The answers today show that we should not stop there and put all that at risk. Instead, we should go further. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing even more to help, in particular, young people with disabilities or mental health conditions into work?

Mark Harper: I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she has held her Norwich for jobs initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Employment Minister has had the opportunity to go and see. We are keen to make sure that we improve performance in getting people on ESA back into work, and my hon. Friend will know particularly that we are trying a number of things in the area of mental health to make sure that we are more successful in that area.

Chi Onwurah: For international women’s day I visited Westgate community college to see the fantastic work that it is doing to improve the skills of women of all ages and backgrounds, but I was told that this Government’s sanctioning policy means that many women cannot feed their children, and also that some women have to come to mandated courses within two weeks of giving birth for fear of losing benefits. Is this how the Government treat women?

Esther McVey: I would like to meet the hon. Lady about these cases because I do not believe they are true. They certainly should not be true because if people had good reason, they would not be sanctioned. People have to take reasonable steps to get a job. We will need to get to the bottom of these cases because that would not be the case. We would not preside over a system where that was the case.

Steve Brine: The jobless count among 18 to 24-year-olds in my constituency is down 79% since 2010. Does the Employment Minister agree that a degree from a good university is one route into work—and someone who goes to the university of Winchester will be among the 92% who are in employment or further education six months after graduating—but just one route, because one of this Government’s great achievements has been to give young people hope that there are other routes?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is quite right. University is one route into work, and if it works for people that is great, but apprenticeships are another route, and this Government have done more than any other to get young people into apprenticeships—there are now more than 2 million apprentices—and into work. I know that my hon. Friend works closely with his university and local businesses to make that happen.

Mr Speaker: We are running late, but this is the last Work and Pensions Question Time of the Parliament and there are two colleagues I wish to accommodate.

Ronnie Campbell: Youth unemployment in my constituency is still very high. Unlike some Tory Members, I cannot brag about a 50% reduction in youth unemployment. In fact, I cannot even go to 5%. Will the Minister do something about it?

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course we want to ensure that every young person has a chance to get a job, none less so than we on the Government side and the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember that the reason they are unemployed is that the economy crashed and fell by 6% of GDP, and we have to put that right. What we are seeing now is more young people across the country getting back into work. I believe that this does and will affect his constituents for the better, which is exactly what it is all about.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Duncan Hames.

Duncan Hames: Now that the roll-out of universal credit is beginning in Wiltshire, what effect will it have on the identification of children’s eligibility for free school meals, and what conversations has the Secretary of State had with Ministers in the Department for Education on how that will affect the allocation of the incredibly popular pupil premium?

Iain Duncan Smith: In the first instance, we have already agreed with the Department for Education on how that will work. It is set on a series of moments when it will apply the free school meals eligibility. I think that it will actually be better than the present system. With regard to the pupil premium, which is in the coalition agreement and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, works successfully, this should have no direct effect on that, other than to improve it.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: As Members will be aware, there was a serious breach of security over the weekend. An intruder gained access to the roofs of the Palace on Saturday evening and was arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning. The intruder did not gain access to the inside of the building. I am grateful to the emergency services for their careful handling of the incident. The security authorities expect to be able to produce a full written report tomorrow. The House will wish to know that immediate remedial actions have been and are being taken to address failings in our security arrangements revealed by early analysis of the incident.

Points of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am known to be a long-term champion of equality for women in our society and at work. During Question Time, only a few moments ago, I referred to the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), as “hard-hearted Hannah”, which I think she thinks was a sexist remark. It was not meant as a sexist remark; it is actually the name of a famous song sung by Ella Fitzgerald. The Minister has a reputation for being a very hard champion of the welfare reforms that this Government have introduced, so I believe that it was a fair comment to make and that it was unfair to call me a sexist. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. All I need say is twofold. First, the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. Secondly, the way I would prefer to characterise it—I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman—is that the Minister of State is an extremely robust character who can make her own case with force and skill, as she has done on several occasions today, and indeed at all times. If the Minister, who felt aggressed against and to an extent aggrieved, wishes to speak briefly on the matter, I would of course give her that opportunity.

Esther McVey: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I want this put on the record is that it is not the first time Opposition Members have been like this to me. John McDonnell came to my constituency and asked people—I know this is unparliamentary language—to “lynch the bitch” live in Wirral West. That is what Labour Members ask people to do in other people’s constituencies. The Opposition have form. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. My role is to seek to defuse this. There are strongly held views on both sides. I asked the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) to raise his point of order and he did, and I thought it right that the Minister of State should have a right of reply and she has had it. I understand there are strong feelings. Let us try to preserve the courtesies as best we can in the days and weeks ahead. In all sincerity, I thank—and I mean that—both Members for having made their contribution. We will leave it there.

ARMED FORCES (SERVICE COMPLAINTS AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 2 February 2015 (Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Anna Soubry.)

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, on the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, HC 508, and the Government response, HC 900.]
	Consideration of Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee

Clause 1
	 — 
	Creation of office of Service Complaints Commission

Rory Stewart: I beg to move amendment 24,page1,line9, leave out “is”

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 25,page1, leave out line 10 and insert—
	“(a) has been a member of the regular or reserve forces in the last five years ending with the day on which the appointment is to take effect, or”
	Amendment 26,page1,line11, after “(b)”, insert “is”
	Amendment 27,page1,line13, at end add—
	“(4A) (a) The period for which a person is appointed shall be not less than five years and not more than seven years.
	(b) A person who has been appointed as Ombudsman may not be re-appointed to the office.”
	Amendment 28,in clause 2, page3,line15, at end insert—
	“(5A) Before making regulations under this section the Defence Council must consult the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”
	Amendment 23,page5,line15, at end insert—
	“(2A) Regulations made under section 340E(1)(b) must specify that in relation to any service complaint which includes allegations of discrimination, harassment, or of being victimised as a result of making such allegations—
	(a) where a person is appointed by the Defence Council for the purposes of section 340C(1)(a) or 340D(2)(d) that person must have a proven understanding of discrimination and harassment;
	(b) where a panel is appointed by the Defence Council for the purposes of section 340C(1)(a) or 340D(2)(d) at least one member of the panel must have a proven understanding of discrimination and harassment.”
	This amendment would require that any regulations made by the Secretary of State must specify that the person, or at least one of the panel members, involved in dealing with Service complaints involving allegations of discrimination or harassment should have a proven understanding of discrimination and harassment.
	Amendment 29,page7,line32, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment 30,page7,line34, leave out from “subject to subsection (2),”
	Amendment 31,page7,line39, leave out subsection (5).
	Amendment 32,page9,line25, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	“(c) provision for the imposition on those to whom reports are sent of obligations of confidentiality in the interests of—
	(i) national security; or
	(ii) the safety of any person.”
	Amendment 33,page9,line30, at end insert—
	“(aa) accept the findings and recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”
	Amendment 34,page9,line32, leave out “(if any)”
	Amendment 35,page9, leave out lines 35 to 37.
	Amendment 36,page12,line14, at end add—
	“( ) The Ombudsman may report to the Secretary of State on any matter relating to service complaints and the procedure for the handling of service complaints as the Ombudsman considers appropriate.”

Rory Stewart: These very important amendments were tabled by the Defence Committee. We shall not press them to a vote, but we want to explain crisply and clearly why we believe them to be very important. They focus above all on four things: the independence, freedom, power and scope of the ombudsman. I shall briefly go through each of the amendments in turn.
	The principle on which the Defence Committee has acted is the need to get the balance right with regard to the very particular needs of military law and military discipline, which we accept are completely different from those in the civilian sphere. The kinds of things that soldiers are required to do are quite different from those required by a conventional employer. It is not necessary to lay those differences out in detail, but military discipline and military law have been quite different from civilian law in a series of important respects for 400 years.
	It is important that, along with preserving the independence of the military and of military discipline and military law, we ensure that the ombudsman is genuinely trusted and respected. The first ingredient of that is, of course, the ombudsman’s independence and making sure there are no conflicts of interest, which is what the first set of amendments in this group—amendments 24 to 27—seek to ensure. They would make sure that the individual had not been in the military—either in the regular or the reserves—in the previous five years. That conflict of interest is obvious, so it is not worth trying the House’s patience. Put simply, if someone had been a senior general a month before they became the ombudsman, there would be a potential conflict of interest in the relationships they might have developed, so we think that a five year gap is sensible.
	The second ingredient, which is in amendment 27, is to push for the term to be non-renewable. That is also about having no conflicts of interest: as the ombudsman do their job, they should not be perpetually thinking about how to get the job again. Our focus is on ensuring that they do the job clearly and crisply, without worrying about whether they will be reappointed—that is independence.
	The second set of amendments, Nos. 28 to 32, deals with the freedom of the ombudsman. The Committee is pushing to ensure that the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Council do not put regulations or procedures in the way of the defence ombudsman or the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces that prevent them from doing their job. We are trying to ensure that although the Ministry of Defence can set the parameters within which the ombudsman operates,
	it is not in a position to micromanage individual procedures. We believe that the Ministry of Defence should consult the ombudsman on regulations. Finally, on the question of power, we do not believe that the Ministry of Defence should be able to use confidentiality as a reason for denying access to the ombudsman, except in two particular cases: the personal safety of the individual and national security. Except in those cases, the ombudsman should have the scope to pursue an investigation.
	The third conceptual issue for the Committee is about the power of the ombudsman. In amendments 33 to 35, we argue that the ombudsman’s recommendations should be binding on the Defence Council. The final conceptual issue is about scope, and amendment 36 touches on thematic reviews. In other words, should the ombudsman find a systemic issue—say, repeated examples of bullying—it may think it necessary to conduct a thematic review of the broader issues.
	The Committee will not press the amendments to a vote because the Government have so far addressed them in a constructive fashion. We very much welcome the fact that they have accepted our major amendment to allow the ombudsman to look not simply at maladministration but at the substance of cases. We note that the Government, in appointing Nicola Williams, have already taken into account in practice many of the recommendations that the Committee wanted. We note that in the contract negotiations with her the Government have already ensured that the ombudsman appointed has not been in the armed forces during the previous five years—in fact, Nicola Williams has never been in the armed forces—which deals with our amendments 24 to 26. We note that the Government have said that the appointment will be non-renewable, which is our amendment 27. In practice, the appointment deals with the conflict of interests problem, and we understand that the Government will set out measures in regulations to deal with our anxieties about freedom, power and scope.
	However, the Committee will of course watch the Government’s performance on such issues very carefully. Given that the Government do not want to agree to the amendments, that they assure us we can trust them and say that we should look at the precedent set by the appointment of Nicola Williams, and that they will introduce individual regulations to achieve all the measures that the Committee want, we will watch them very carefully. The Committee reserves the right to reintroduce the amendments, particularly in the Armed Forces Bill to be introduced in the next Parliament, if we believe the Government have reneged on what at the moment appears to be a commitment made in good faith, to ensure that the ombudsman’s principles are upheld.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for the way in which he is setting out its views. Will he expand a little more on the concerns expressed in some quarters about the ombudsman not having any military knowledge and experience? How will she address that problem, if it is a problem?

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend raised that central question during the Defence Committee’s pre-appointment hearing. We were very pleased that the Committee had
	an opportunity to meet Nicola Williams and to conduct a pre-appointment hearing with her. We focused very heavily on whether, without military experience, she would feel comfortable in the role. We were very impressed by Nicola Williams. Her arguments and explanations were extremely convincing, she displayed real independence in her role in the Cayman Islands, and she seemed to have the right balance of independence and respect for the institution. We were very happy, as a Committee, to approve her appointment.
	To conclude, this matter is very important to the Defence Committee. We are not conventionally a Committee that looks at legislation. The nature of our work is not usually to scrutinise individual Bills, because a great deal of the work of the Ministry of Defence is not connected with legislation. However, we feel that it is very important in the setting up of the ombudsman that Parliament, and the Defence Committee in particular, is carefully involved.
	We accept that it is a step in the right direction that the post of ombudsman has gone from thee days a week to a full-time job, and from having five employees to having more than 20. We accept that it is a good move that the Defence Committee has the power to hold an appointment hearing on the ombudsman. We also think it is good that the Government have accepted amendments from the Defence Committee. Aside from the inherent merits of those amendments, it is simply good procedure that in setting up an ombudsman, the Executive listen to the legislative branch and give Parliament and the Defence Committee the chance to influence the procedure. The ombudsman will have trust only if they bring not just the Ministry of Defence but Parliament, the public and institutions such as the Defence Committee with them. On those grounds, I move the amendment, but will not press it to a vote.

Madeleine Moon: I shall speak briefly to the amendments tabled by the Defence Committee and to amendment 23, which I tabled.
	The armed forces, as I frequently tell my constituents, are a closed institution with their own language, dress code and standards. Most personnel live a closed life that is mostly unobserved by society, but which represents the highest values of our society. The armed forces also have their own internal disciplinary system and legal system—AGAI 67. Abuses of the system can remain hidden and have done, as seen in the double jeopardy cases I have discussed in the House and in the Public Bill Committee. Those cases were revealed only because of whistleblowers.
	One of the most important things we must accept about the armed forces is that innate to them is a huge desire for justice. Armed forces personnel have a huge recognition of the importance of justice and the importance of people being dealt with fairly. However, papers frequently come through my office that demonstrate that the service complaints system to date has not necessarily been working fairly.
	I welcome the changes that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), accepted in Committee. I also welcomed her intervention on Second Reading when she revealed that the issue of double jeopardy would be addressed. I hope we shall have regular updates on the efforts to
	access the 587 ex-employees, 194 of whom had their service terminated and five of whom had their rank reduced.
	Armed forces personnel have limited access to employment tribunals. It is therefore critical that the internal system operates well and gives a sense of confidence to armed forces personnel. We know that the delays are growing. As the number of armed forces personnel decreases, the pressure on personnel increases. The number of people who investigate and adjudicate in the matter of service complaints is also decreasing. As I have said, the creation of the service complaints ombudsman and the changes that were introduced in Committee are the last chance for the armed forces to maintain the current closed system.

Jim Shannon: In Committee, the delays for serving soldiers and those employed by the Ministry of Defence in getting their complaints heard concerned me greatly. There are also people who have lost their jobs or who have been suspended—one of my constituents has been suspended for four years on full pay. Will the proposed changes restore much-needed confidence in the process?

Madeleine Moon: In many respects that is the critical issue, and I hope the Defence Committee will take an active role in monitoring and adjudicating on whether we need to come back to the Bill and decide whether further changes are necessary. Papers that I received this morning tell me that 74% of the Army’s open service complaints exceed the 24-week deadline—six months—and only 51% of new service complaints in the RAF were resolved in 24 weeks during 2014. In January 2015, the Army had 724 service complaints outstanding from 2013 and previous years. The Navy had 144, and the RAF 165. Those figures are deeply worrying—we are about to introduce a new, complex system with opportunities for the ombudsman to be much more proactive in intervening in service complaints, yet we already have a huge backlog of complaints. I would like the Minister to address whether those outstanding complaints will be subject to the new rules introduced by the Bill, and whether they will be assessed under rules of maladministration. That will be one of the critical deciders as to whether there is confidence for those who have been held in the system and experienced horrendous delays.
	Parliament sets the standards that it expects our armed forces to operate to, and it must have confidence that the internal military system works. As I said, Parliament has the opportunity in 2015 to review further the operation of the service complaints system, and to remove control of the system from the chain of command unless we see the changes that we want and our armed forces deserve. Internal papers that come our way suggest that, increasingly, reserves will be used to help to deal with complaints. Will the Minister say how often reserves will be used to sit on panels and change the way that complaints are dealt with?
	There are positives to using reserves, because they come with a wider perspective of life outside the armed forces and know how some of the bullying and harassment, and some of the horrendous cases that have come to public attention, would be dealt with in a wider employment setting. That could be a constructive move forward, but
	it is important at least to be clear about what is happening, whether reserves are being used in that way, and what skills they are bringing to the complaints system and its operation.
	There are a number of complaints within the current system such as poor quality entry of complaints into the joint personnel administration system, which is where complaints are held. Indeed, in December 2014 the service complaints wing identified more than 70 service complaints that had not been notified through the unit as a service complaint, and had not been entered on to the system. We therefore do not even know whether we are still getting accurate figures for service complaints. On delay, as I have said, the numbers are growing. It is important that people feel confidence in the system, and that the system is seen as robust and working.
	I wish to speak briefly to my amendment 23, which deals with the training of armed forces personnel in matters of discrimination and harassment. The amendment requires that regulations made by the Secretary of State must specify that the person, or at least one of the panel members, dealing with service complaints involving allegations of discrimination or harassment should have a proven understanding of discrimination and harassment. The amendment is welcomed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Parliamentary questions I asked last year revealed the military’s lack of understanding on these issues. When I raised the question of how many people in the armed forces had had equality and diversity training, I was told that Royal Navy serving personnel receive two hours of training every two years. In the Army there is half an hour of training every year, and in the RAF there is two hours every three years. For new entrants to the armed forces, the Royal Navy provides three hours, the Army two hours and the RAF two and a half hours of equality and diversity training.
	Armed forces personnel go to employment tribunals in very few cases involving discrimination. At the same time as I was receiving that answer from the Minister, the Ministry of Defence was being taken to an employment tribunal. In the judgment for Williams v. Ministry of Defence, the employment tribunal stated that the
	“cavalier and abject failure to follow the clear guidelines provided by the Code of Practice under the Equality Act 2010 and its predecessor legislation is shocking as too is the seeming lack of knowledge of and education in issues of equality by those in higher ranks within the organisation”.
	The tribunal found the claimant, the most senior ranking nurse in the Royal Navy, had suffered sex discrimination in relation to promotion. It made 13 wide-ranging recommendations, including equality and diversity training for those involved in assignment, promotion and recruitment decisions.
	In another case, Boswell v. MOD, from 2013, we find yet more evidence of the impact that this lack of basic understanding can have. The employment tribunal commented that in dealing with Mr Boswell’s complaints of discrimination, the MOD had
	“very much let down a distinguished and long serving member of the armed forces”
	and that a
	“lack of proper appreciation of the importance of addressing discrimination complaints have been a very real barrier to any clear thinking on the part of the respondent in addressing the discrimination that the claimant has sought to complain of internally.”
	I do not intend to press amendment 23 to a Division, but I hope that this issue will be dealt with in regulation. The Minister knows me well and knows that I will continue to monitor and pursue this matter. It is only right that the serving members of our armed forces should not face bullying, harassment and discrimination in serving their country and placing their lives on the line.

Kevan Jones: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and the Defence Committee for their work on the Bill. The Committee produced an excellent report covering some major concerns about the system of redress for members of our armed forces which, I have to say, have been raised for many years. The amendments tabled in Committee and on Report today show how effective a Select Committee can be when it does its job. We covered many of the amendments in Committee, and as the hon. Gentleman said, he is not going to press his to a vote, but some of these issues will need to be looked at in regulations. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said that she would keep a close eye on the regulations, and I am sure that the Committee will as well.
	The issue that amendments 24 to 28 deal with has followed me throughout my time in Parliament—I was on the Committee that discussed similar matters when we set up the Service Complaints Commissioner—so I am pleased today that we are moving to where we should have been back then, with an ombudsman with the powers and effectiveness that our armed forces require. On the commissioner’s length of service, the suggestion, which we supported in Committee, is between five and seven years, to give the person time to establish themselves and avoid the situation that we see with many public appointments where the person spends more time in the last few years trying to ensure their reappointment than doing an effective job. For that reason, we will have to consider the time limits for the ombudsman.
	When we set up the commissioner, it was argued vociferously, especially by Conservative Back Benchers, that they had to have military experience, but I think the present commissioner has shown otherwise. She has done a very effective job without a service background and has earned the respect of the members of the armed forces she has worked with, and I look forward to the new armed forces ombudsman carrying on that tradition. It is important that the position be seen to be independent and that it gives complainants confidence that individuals cannot use the old boys’ network, as it was called in Committee, to influence the ombudsman or commissioner. Much strength has been gained from having someone, in Susan Atkins, who has done a forensic job and taken the trouble, time and effort to understand how our armed forces work and the cultural differences between them. As those who have dealt with them know, they are very different, have their individual cultures and in the past have differed in their implementation of various forms of discipline.
	Under the amendments, the Defence Council would consult the ombudsman before making regulations, which, again, I do not see as a threat; it could help the council and the MOD ensure that regulations have an independent eye cast over them. Just as the Defence Committee has
	played a role in developing the Bill, so I see a role for it in scrutinising regulations and how it is put into practice. It might be a good idea for it to look back, perhaps in a year or so, to see how it has worked in practice.

Dai Havard: My hon. Friend was a signatory to the 2003 report that followed the Deepcut barracks incidents, when the Committee started work on such a system. I pay tribute to him and other Committee members who have worked consistently to get to this situation, and I am sure that the next Committee will be equally diligent in ensuring we go further. Would he agree?

Kevan Jones: What—praise myself? Surely not, so modest as I am! I wish to put on the record, however, my thanks to my hon. Friend, who is retiring at the election, for his service on the Committee. I think he has been a member for most of his time in Parliament. He has not only shown a keen interest in the subject, but cares about the issues.
	I will develop the point further on Third Reading, but it is good to see this legislation coming into being. Should it have happened earlier? Yes. Do the inerrant conservatisms within the system work? Yes, I think they do. When the idea of having an armed forces Service Complaints Commissioner was brought forward, to hear some people talking about it one would have thought that the earth would stop spinning on its axis if such a person were created—but it has not: it has helped the chain of command and provided greater transparency over the tough decisions that we recognise have to be made. When this Bill comes into force, the same question will arise again—why did we not do this many years before?
	Amendments 32 to 36 deal with the issue of whether the ombudsman will have teeth and whether the decisions she takes should be accepted and then enforced on the Defence Council. I said in Committee that we would support the amendments. Time will tell, but I think it would be a brave Defence Councillor or Minister who turned round and rejected a recommendation from the armed services ombudsman. What the Defence Committee wanted to achieve through these amendments will in practice become simply a part of the normal system and the Defence Council will accept the ombudsman’s recommendations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend makes a good point in her amendment 23, and I pay tribute to her tenacity in pursuing this Bill and to her broader support for ensuring that when things go wrong in our armed forces, individuals get the justice they deserve. Her amendment refers to discrimination and harassment. She makes a good point that it is important for at least one of the individuals on the board to have full knowledge and training in relevant areas. The new ombudsman can look at the issues raised today and assist the armed forces by ensuring that the personnel on the panels have the necessary training and expertise.
	We shall not press for a vote on the amendments, but many of the issues that have arisen from them today will be dealt with through regulations. It is important that, in drawing them up, the Ministry of Defence takes into account the clear concerns raised by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the
	Defence Committee. I would not want regulations somehow to limit or put a straitjacket on the operations of the new armed services ombudsman.
	I said the same thing when the Service Complaints Commissioner was appointed, and I shall say it again. Our armed forces and the military generally have nothing to fear from this new appointment. It will enhance the transparency we expect and, if it is done properly, it will improve the problem identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend—that complaints are taking far too long to resolve. In any other walk of life, it would be unacceptable to allow such long delays. As I say, this will help the armed forces. Anyone who has ever dealt with a complaints system or disciplinary procedures knows that the quicker they are resolved the better. This helps to ensure that the system is fair and that, even if individuals do not like the outcome of the disciplinary procedures, they will at least know that their cases will be dealt with quickly and effectively.
	I think that the Defence Committee has done a great job, and that the Bill has been vastly improved. I hope that some of the issues that have been raised here can be dealt with in regulations.

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to the Defence Committee for its work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for his sensible comments. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her long-standing work, and thank her for her contribution today. I am afraid I cannot thank her for everything, because she came to see me last week and gave me part of her very filthy cold; but, as ever, she spoke with great force, and rightly made clear—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—that Members would be watching the ombudsman’s progress very carefully.
	While I am confident that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will be back here on 10 May, I do not necessarily have the same confidence in my own return. However, I can tell them that, should I be in such a fortunate position thanks to the support of the people of Broxtowe, I too will be keeping an eye on the progress of the ombudsman, regardless of the Bench on which I find myself sitting. Of course, in an ideal world the ombudsman would not have to do any work at all. Would it not be marvellous if she had no work to do? Unfortunately, however, she will have a great deal of work to do, because we have a system that, as we know, is not performing as it should be.
	When I had the great pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland and meeting my hon. Friend—as I now consider him to be—the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we spoke about the Bill and about the complaints system. He reminded me earlier today of the genuine concern that he feels about delay. Under the existing system, we hear all too often from members of all three services that there is too much delay, and that there is no excuse for it.
	There are sometimes good reasons for delay. It is in the nature of service life that it may not be possible to find a witness—or even a complainant—for some time, because members of the armed forces may be on operations for at least six months. Someone who is serving on a submarine will be literally out of contact for those
	six months, or longer. Delay may also be caused by the complexity of a case, especially if it relates to allowances or pensions. However, all too often it is clearly due to the attitude that is taken. Complainants may be told, “I am very busy. I have a lot of other things on my plate. We are putting together a group of people to build a hospital in Sierra Leone. It is a crisis. It is an emergency and it is not going to wait, but your complaint can wait.”
	We must change that attitude. A good, expeditious system will deliver justice. I know many people fear that false complaints will be lodged, but an effective system will ensure that only right and just complaints are dealt with, and people will then begin to have confidence in the system.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for accepting what we said in Committee, and for responding to it so positively. We felt that the delays were untenable and unfair, and were creating problems. Does the Minister think that the new system will enable people to have confidence in it, and to believe that, at long last, the delays will be reduced and they will be helped to secure the satisfaction that they seek?

Anna Soubry: I believe that if the Bill passes through all its remaining stages, of which there are not too many, and if we extend the remit of Nicola Williams, in whom we all have confidence, to create the role of the ombudsman—following the passing of amendments in Committee that the Government did not oppose—the system will be hugely improved, and people will have more confidence in it. It also sends out a very clear message to our armed forces that they have got to sharpen up now and absolutely make sure that when somebody makes a complaint, whether it is a more serious and more appalling bullying and harassment complaint—which mercifully are rare; we know there is nothing peculiar about our armed forces that means we have more such complaints than other professions or fields of work—or complaints about allowances or pay or whatever, it is taken seriously and is acted upon not only fairly and justly, but with all due diligence and expeditiously, so we do not have these delays.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Lady agree that what we are talking about this evening is a continuation of the good work done by the last two Governments through their respective Armed Forces Bills—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I are, I think, the only two Members who served on both occasions?

Anna Soubry: Yes, I do. Both the hon. Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border have said that we have seen a progression to where we are today, and we must understand and recognise that some think this is a step too far. They think we have gone too far and perceive some threat to the chain of command. I absolutely do not believe that, but things often take time to develop in the ways we want. I am absolutely confident that we have struck the right balance.

Rory Stewart: The question of whether this is a fundamental threat to the chain of command is a central point. Although people are very polite and do not put
	this about, I know a lot of colleagues and people in the armed forces are concerned that this is going too far. Will the Minister lay out more clearly why this is not a threat to the chain of command?

Anna Soubry: This Bill—it has now been amended and we have accepted the amendments—changes the ombudsman’s remit but not her powers. Somebody who brings a complaint to Nicola Williams can be absolutely confident that it will be thoroughly and properly dealt with, and that she will be in a position to make her recommendations. She has access to Ministers and to others in the chain of command, and can go to them at any time. That chain of command is not under threat because of her. Indeed, I am confident that the creation of the ombudsman will give the chain of command the understanding—the hon. Member for Bridgend or the hon. Member for North Durham made this point—that it has nothing to fear from the ombudsman, nor from a better system, because if complaints are dealt with properly and expeditiously, and fairly and justly, we will have a better team and group of people. This will only strengthen the chain of command’s ability to conduct its business.

Bob Stewart: Although we have heard a lot about complaints, may I put it on the record that the chain of command deals very properly with most of the problems in the units for which it has responsibility and that we are talking about only a relatively small percentage of people? I just wanted to make that point, because all we have heard is complaints, complaints, complaints. There are not many complaints from the vast number of people who are dealt with properly by the officers in charge of them.

Anna Soubry: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I thought I had made it, but there is no harm in his repeating and endorsing it. Of course the majority serve without any complaint, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend knows, in any organisation there are bad apples, and even in a modern world there are times when people are undoubtedly bullied, and are undoubtedly the subject of discrimination and harassment; there are times when we get it wrong. The hon. Member for Bridgend knows of a very good example of not bullying or harassment but what she called double jeopardy, where something has been done wrong. That may well be to the detriment of certain people, in which case they are right to raise that complaint and we need good, strong systems. No organisation gets things 100% right, and when they go wrong people must have confidence that their complaint will be dealt with fairly and justly, and that if it is not they can go somewhere else—to the ombudsman, in this instance. Now that we have agreed to the amendments tabled in Committee, it will not only be maladministration that can be taken into account. The merits of the case and the matter of delay will also be considered.
	I know that we are not going to vote on the amendments, but I should like to tell the House why the Government resist them. Amendment 23 would require anyone appointed to decide on a complaint or on an appeal that related to harassment, discrimination or victimisation to have a proven understanding of such matters. We all acknowledge
	that these can be among the more complex complaints, as they involve relationships that have gone wrong in one way or another. However, no record is or could reasonably be kept of those who may have an understanding of such matters so that they could be called upon when required, as the amendment proposes. I understand the principle behind the amendment, and there is no doubt that it is entirely well intentioned, but I cannot agree to it—certainly at this stage—for the reasons I have just stated.
	Amendments 24 to 26 would require there to be a gap of five years between a person ending their service in the regular or reserve forces and becoming eligible to be appointed to the post of service complaints ombudsman. The provision in the Bill simply requires that the individual to be appointed to the post should not currently be a member of the regular or reserve forces or of the civil service. Our people will rightly expect the ombudsman to carry out the role with impartiality and professionalism. That person should also of course be demonstrably independent of those whom they seek to hold to account for the way in which complaints have been handled. For that reason, the ombudsman will be outside the chain of command and will have access to Ministers and to all levels of the chain of command whenever he or she deems it necessary. I make no apology for repeating that the ombudsman will be able to approach the chain of command and Ministers at any time, at any level and on any issue, should they need to do so.
	Being in offices that are outside the defence estate and recruiting their own staff in line with civil service recruitment guidelines will further reinforce the ombudsman’s independence from the services and from the Ministry of Defence. A further mark of the role’s independence and the security of the post holder’s tenure is the fact that the Bill provides that the post holder’s appointment will be subject to approval by Her Majesty the Queen. Yet another measure of their independence is that the House of Commons Defence Committee will conduct a pre-appointment hearing with the MOD’s preferred candidate.
	Our aim is to attract high quality candidates and to get the best person for this important job. These amendments would restrict the field of possible candidates and exclude those who might have recent, relevant experience. We want therefore to retain the flexibility provided under the Bill’s current provisions, and I must stress that any previous armed forces experience can and will be scrutinised and fully assessed for any impact it might have on perceptions of the candidate’s independence. For those reasons, these proposals are resisted.
	Amendments 27 would require the length of the ombudsman’s term in office, and a statement that it was non-renewable, to be set out in the legislation. It would require that the ombudsman not be appointed for less than five years or longer than seven, and that the term could not be renewed. The amendment’s aim is to ensure that the person appointed to be the ombudsman would not be influenced in their assessment of how the complaints system was operating or, in their investigation of maladministration claims, by concerns about whether they would be reappointed. It also aims to give the ombudsman, and those whom they serve, some certainty about the length of time they would be post and to
	make that term of office a reasonable enough length for the post holder to get to grips with the role and to see through changes.
	I fully acknowledge all those aims, but I do not accept that those provisions need to be set out on the face of the Bill in order for those matters to be enforced or to give certainty and confidence. The matters have been set out in the letter of appointment for the current commissioner, and we believe that to be the right approach. We want to retain the flexibility to amend those terms of appointment if experience suggests that that might be necessary. The amendment is therefore resisted.
	Amendments 29 to 31 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations about the ombudsman’s procedure for investigations in new section 340I, leaving it to the ombudsman to determine its own procedure. The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the effective operation of the whole service complaints system, including the ombudsman stage, so it is right that certain basic matters are prescribed in regulations. One or two matters, such as time limits, are required to be in regulations in order for the ombudsman to be able to enforce them. The ombudsman is a creature of statute and so only has the powers Parliament provides him or her with. It is up to the ombudsman in each case to determine the procedure for carrying out any investigation. The published draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Ombudsman Investigations) regulations make it clear that there is no intention unduly to restrict the ombudsman in how it investigates matters. Rather than restrict the ombudsman, we encourage the ombudsman to set her own details of procedural rules. The Secretary of State’s powers through regulations are supplementing powers, rather than limiting ones, in that they enable the ombudsman to have the powers she requires to be effective.
	We do believe that some of those details are best set out in regulations, making clear the parameters for the ombudsman’s investigative process. Those include, for example, the ability to hold oral hearings and to provide individuals with the right to be represented at any such hearing. As this is a new ombudsman, we would like to retain the flexibility—again—to amend the procedures based on experience of the system as it develops, which is why we have not set out detailed procedural rules in the Bill. That flexibility enables the system to be more efficient, effective and independent. For those reasons, these amendments are resisted.
	Amendment 32 would amend the Bill so that confidentiality obligations that could be imposed by the ombudsman on those to whom she sends investigation reports would be limited to issues of national security and the personal safety of individuals. The amendment would remove the ability to reflect any wider issues about the protection of sensitive information that is currently provided for in the Bill and in regulations. That current provision is important and should be retained. The ombudsman may need to see some sensitive information in order to be able fully to investigate whether maladministration has occurred. The ombudsman will be expected to act in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in the handling and processing of personal data.
	Under the Bill, the ombudsman may send an investigation report to any person she considers appropriate. We would expect the ombudsman to place confidentiality obligations on the recipient where the report contains sensitive personal data or other information confidential to the Department, including for reasons of national security. In addition, regulations may make further provision about these obligations, as specified in new section 340L(7)(c). These regulations are not aimed at curtailing freedom of speech; rather they are to ensure that sensitive information is properly protected. For those reasons, amendment 32 is resisted.
	Amendments 33 to 35 seek to make the ombudsman’s findings and recommendations binding on the Defence Council. The Government have made clear in the other place and in Committee in this House their intention that the findings of the ombudsman will be binding on the Defence Council, and the services accept this. The legal effect of ombudsman findings is not specified in other legislation, and the courts have had no difficulty in determining, in those contexts, that they are binding on the receiving organisation. We simply do not regard it as necessary to specify the legal effect of findings in the Bill.
	Our position in relation to the ombudsman’s recommendations is slightly different. First, as was explained in the other place and again in Committee in this House, our view is that the recommendations will clearly have some legal effect. The Defence Council will not be free simply to reject the recommendations because it disagrees with them. It would need to have very good, cogent, written reasons to do so, such as where the implementation of the recommendations in full was simply unworkable or where significant resource implications may be involved. It is right that the Defence Council should be able to reach the final decision on matters covered in any recommendations made by the ombudsman. The focus of the Defence Council will therefore be, in most cases where the ombudsman has made recommendations, to decide precisely how it will respond. That may simply be a matter of implementing the recommendation, whether it is for an appropriate apology to be made or for a part of the process to be rerun. For those reasons, the legal effect of findings and recommendations will not be specified in the Bill, and these amendments must be resisted.
	Amendment 36 widens the scope of matters on which the ombudsman can make a report beyond those already provided for in the ombudsman’s annual report. They are the operation of the complaints process, the execution of their role and any other matters that the ombudsman considers necessary, or that the Secretary of State may direct. The existing provisions at proposed new section 340O are sufficient to cover what the amendment seeks to provide, and for that reason I must resist it.
	I wish now to deal with the questions of the hon. Member for Bridgend. In relation to outstanding complaints to be dealt with under the new system, I hope that she will be pleased to hear that we are still looking to put in place transitional arrangements. We are not ruling the matter out on the grounds of retrospection, but we recognise that there would be a benefit in existing complaints having access to the ombudsman; we get that. Our plans will be clear in the regulations, which will be published later on this year.
	On the question about reserves, we are already making sensible use of reservists in the existing process. The Army and the RAF already use reservist officers to complement complaint panels, and there is no reason why that should not continue. As is ever the case with reservists, they bring from their civilian life huge amounts of experience. That other side of their life will no doubt enhance their ability to look at complaints with a different eye and a bit of freshness that others sitting on panels may not have—I mean no criticism here—by virtue of being in service for a long time.
	As I have said before during the passage of the Bill, there is no bar in this Bill to the ombudsman raising matters that concern them with whoever they wish and whenever they wish, but that does not need to be set out in legislation. The previous service complaints commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins—we pay tribute to her for her work—raised a wide range of matters with the chain of command during her tenure, and, if I can put it in this way, she took no prisoners. She also made mention of whatever matters she so chose to in her annual reports with provisions that were the same as those provided for in this Bill, so we have no reason to think that the ombudsman will not do exactly the same. For all the reasons that I have outlined, these amendments are resisted.

Rory Stewart: I reiterate what the Defence Committee said, which is that the amendments are extremely important conceptual points relating to the independence of the ombudsman and conflict of interest; the power of the ombudsman; the freedom of the ombudsman to operate; and the scope of the ombudsman. We will not press the amendment to a vote at this time. That is a good will gesture to the Government, who have made a concession on an important amendment.
	I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has been the guiding spirit and soul of this process from the beginning to the end. She has kept the Defence Committee focused and she has kept it honest. I hope that she feels a real sense of achievement at having got through this extremely important amendment.

Mr Speaker: For the avoidance of doubt, if the hon. Gentleman could just say the words that he seeks leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rory Stewart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Reform of System for Redress of individual Grievances

Anna Soubry: I beg to move amendment 1,page6,line28, after “may”, insert “, on an application to the Ombudsman by a person within subsection (1A),”
	This amendment clarifies the provision made in new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (inserted by clause 2 of the Bill) about the making of applications to the Service Complaints Ombudsman. See also amendment 5.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 2 to 6
	Amendment 22,page6,line37 at end insert—
	“() for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)—
	“Undue delay” should be considered any length of time longer than one calendar year, or a length of time that the Ombudsman determines constitutes an undue delay in relation to a given complaint.”
	This amendment defines “undue delay” for the purposes of paragraph (c) of new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see Government amendment 4).
	Government amendments 7 to 21

Anna Soubry: The amendments make the changes to the Bill agreed in Committee and ensure that they work correctly from a drafting point of view. I do not mean to insult or to criticise anyone, but we had to ensure that these amendments had the effect that the majority of the Committee wanted. I also want to make it clear that the Government accept the changes made in Committee and that nothing in these amendments seeks to row back on what the Committee agreed. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, because I have seen all the key players—I now see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is sitting at the back. He might take offence at that, but I hope that he does not. We have done that quite deliberately so that everybody knows why the amendments have been proposed. They fill in significant gaps left by the amendments agreed in Committee and, in particular, ensure that the ombudsman can make recommendations following an investigation into a service complaint, giving her decisions the necessary teeth.
	The amendments agreed in Committee reflect some of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee in its report on the Bill, which was published last October. I am grateful for the Defence Committee’s work on the Bill and it is clear that the changes agreed in Committee now have cross-party support, as they did in the Defence Committee. The Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee and by others on Second Reading and have accepted them. I therefore hope that the amendments will be supported across the House.
	The Public Bill Committee agreed that the role of the ombudsman should be extended in three ways. The first was that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance or merits of an individual complaint and not just whether it had been handled correctly by the services. In other words, she should be able to consider not just maladministration. The second was that the ombudsman should look for any maladministration that had occurred, not just that alleged by the complainant. If during the course of examining that complaint she comes across any other maladministration, she should be able to consider that.
	Those are changes to the ombudsman’s remit, but it is important to emphasise a point that has sometimes been lost in our debates. The ombudsman will ordinarily become involved in individual complaints only once the consideration of them by the services has finished. It is important to reiterate that if an individual makes a complaint it should go through all the necessary stages and processes and if there is no finding in the complainant’s favour, meaning that he or she feels that the grievance has not been met—that they have not won, if you like—they can go to the ombudsman. If complaints are
	successfully dealt with by the services, there is no need for those complaints to go to the ombudsman. Most complaints are satisfactorily resolved, as one might imagine they would be in any complaints system.
	It is important to make a point because the third change agreed in Committee is to allow the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) earlier, in three different respects: as part of a maladministration investigation, in relation to an ongoing “live” complaint, and pre-complaint. As I am sure you have worked out, Mr Speaker, I mean that when somebody has made a complaint that has got stuck and has not been got on with, even though it has not been completed, that person can go to the ombudsman. Even before a complaint has got into the system, if it is thought that there has been some prevarication or undue delay, the complainant can go to the ombudsman to unstick whatever is gluing things up.
	It is in everyone’s interests to have a complaints process in which roles and powers are clear so that there is no confusion. It is also important that the wishes of the individual remain at the heart of the process, given that this is an individual’s grievance procedure. It is about that individual and his or her grievance. It remains the case that the services will in every case still be left to decide how to respond to any findings or recommendations made by the ombudsman, even in relation to the extended remit that the ombudsman will now have.
	We have dealt with the amendments made in Committee with those points firmly in mind and the Government’s amendments today make the necessary additional changes to the rest of the Bill’s provisions, which were left untouched by the amendments in Committee, so that there can be no doubt about the precise scope of the ombudsman’s powers. That is why proposed new section 340H(1), as amended by our amendments, will set out in good strong terms that the ombudsman can investigate the following: a service complaint when that complaint has completed the internal system, making it clear that the ombudsman can look into the merits of a complaint; an allegation of a mishandling of service complaints, including undue delay, when that complaint has completed the internal system, which deals with maladministration; and allegations that a service complaint has been unduly delayed before the complaint has completed the internal system or, as I have explained, that there was undue delay before a service complaint was made.

Bob Stewart: Do I assume that if the Service Complaints Commissioner looks at a matter and says that there is no case to answer, it can finish there, rather than there being a long process? Can the commissioner say, “There is no case to answer; this matter is finished”?

Anna Soubry: If somebody says that there has been undue delay, but the commissioner finds that there has not, she can certainly say so, though at that stage, of course, she would not be looking at the merits of the case. If somebody makes a complaint and goes through the system, and there is no finding in their favour, and then says, “I will now go to the ombudsman on the question of the merits of the case”, it is absolutely the ombudsman’s role to look at whether there is any merit
	to the case. If she thinks that there is no merit to it, she will not flinch from saying so. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
	It is now possible to apply to the ombudsman alleging undue delay when a complaint in the internal system has not been concluded, or indeed when a complaint has not even been made, so it is important that the Bill sets out for the avoidance of doubt what is meant by the internal process having been completed. That is effected by putting the phrase “finally determined” in proposed new section 340H(1); an explanation of the term is provided in proposed new subsection (5). Several hon. Members raised that issue with me before the debate in private—I mean nothing untoward by that. I want to make it clear for the Hansard record that the phrase “finally determined” does not in any way preclude the ombudsman’s looking into the merits or maladministration of a complaint. It is simply there to make it clear that she can do that only once consideration of the complaint by the services through the internal system has been completed, and only when the applicant has asked the ombudsman to investigate in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. The phrase brings clarity.
	It remains important for the ombudsman to have a reasonably clear idea of what the applicant wants them to look into, and for investigations to remain focused and proportionate. One of the amendments would insert a new subsection (4)(b) in section 340H, requiring the applicant to specify which type or types of investigation the complainant wants the ombudsman to carry out. This is not an onerous obligation, and it will help to focus the efforts of the ombudsman on what is most important to the applicant. That is connected with the amendment that would insert new subsection (1)(b) in new section 340I, giving the ombudsman the discretion to decide whether to investigate the whole service complaint or allegation, or just part of it.
	New section 340H also reflects the change to the ombudsman’s ability to report on any maladministration identified during an investigation of a complainant’s allegation of maladministration. We want the ombudsman to be free to report on any other aspect of mishandling that she may come across, and have amended the Bill accordingly to make this clear throughout the relevant provisions. Our changes provide an essential clarification to the amendments agreed in Committee; those amendments would have required the ombudsman to look for any maladministration in every investigation, whether or not it had been alleged by the complainant. The amendment that we propose to new section 340H(6) clarifies the scope of this new aspect of the ombudsman’s investigative power.
	It is equally important for everyone that it is clear what the ombudsman can do on completing an investigation. Her ability to produce a report with findings and recommendations is fundamental to the view that many will rightly have about whether this new role really does have teeth. The Government amendments will also fill a gap that was left when amendments were made in Committee. We would amend new section 340L to make it clear that the ombudsman must, after carrying out an investigation, prepare a report setting out her findings and recommendations. After an investigation of a service complaint, the ombudsman will need to issue findings stating whether the complaint was well founded, and will need to make any recommendations
	to ensure appropriate redress. The Defence Council retains responsibility for responding to those findings and recommendations, in accordance with new section 340M. The Government amendments also clarify that the ombudsman must set out any recommendations as a result of a finding of maladministration or undue delay.
	This group of amendments is a relatively large one, but it is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are clear. The amendments also ensure that the drafting is coherent and complete, while giving full effect to the amendments agreed to in Committee, which had cross-party support. In a couple of important respects, which I have outlined, they also improve the amendments which were agreed to in Committee.
	We could have been, shall I say, a little bit naughty. When we saw what had been voted for, we could have left it there, knowing that it did not do the job that we knew the Committee wanted it to do. We accordingly went to our draftsmen and draftswomen and we have made sure that the spirit of the Committee is now being put into law.

Rory Stewart: Without being too pedantic or too pompous at this point, there is an important procedural point here when we discuss being naughty or otherwise. There is an important conceptual element in setting up an ombudsman, which is showing respect to Parliament, respect to the Committee system—respect to both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee. Rather than getting into the ins and outs of politics, I encourage the Minister to see this as a great success and a great model for the way such things can go forward in the future.

Anna Soubry: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. We could have played politics, but I absolutely was not going to do that. My officials would not dream of such a thing, of course, but we could have done that because the amendments were not clear. I took the firm view that it was clear what the Committee wanted and that we should do everything we could to put it into effect. There was a good argument for waiting until the next armed forces Bill, but I took the view that that would not be right. It was clear what the Defence Committee wanted and what the Public Bill Committee wanted. That is why the Government have tabled the amendments. We know that that is, in effect, the will of the legislature. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) nodding.
	The amendments will give us a Bill and a process that will help our people understand when they can approach the ombudsman, on what matters and at what stage of the process, and they will give the ombudsman the teeth needed to hold the services and the MOD to account. I therefore commend amendments 1 to 21 to the House.

Madeleine Moon: Amendment 22, which is in my name, seeks to define “undue delay”. I pay respect to the Minister, who has taken time to meet everyone involved with the Bill. We had considerable discussion on the issue of undue delay and how it could be defined, and we agreed that, although I would not press the amendment today, it was important that there was a dialogue about delay.
	There are two things that one can say for certain about the current complaints system: delay is an endemic problem within the system, and everyone is aware of it. It came to the attention of the Committee many times that only 25% of cases are resolved within a 24-week target, and only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during that year. The internal risk register looking at the implementation of the service ombudsman Bill within the MOD stated that there was a high risk that the system would lose further internal credibility if there was continuing media exposure of how powerless the ombudsman is. Rather than media exposure taking place, it is important that the system operates well so that there can be internal confidence.
	There is a high risk that the system will continue to fail and that current delays will continue. There is a high risk that service personnel will be let down, damaging their mental health and leading to suicide attempts. None of us wants to see any of that, which is why the Defence Committee has worked as closely as possibly with the Minister to ensure that we move forward in a constructive and productive manner.
	In January 2013, 325 complaints had a red flag. By December 2013 that figure had swelled by over 50% to 500. We have seen repeatedly how delay has been used to wear down complainants so that they go away. It is also used as a punishment for complaints being made in the first place.
	Members have raised concerns about this being an attack on the chain of command. Let me say that, since the Bill Committee, I have taken time—I have spoken to the Minister about this—to talk to people in the chain of command and to ask them how they feel about the changes introduced by the Defence Committee. Every person I have spoken to has welcomed the changes and not felt threatened by them. They all felt that the changes were right and that they would focus people’s minds and attentions on complaints so that they are not put in a cupboard and regarded as an annoyance, but are seen as one of the parts of the job to be dealt with first, so that the unit operates efficiently and effectively. The bad pennies that exist would be dealt with quickly and a clear message would be sent that bullying and harassment, in particular, would not be tolerated anywhere in the chain of command.
	Delay is caused in part by the labyrinthine system that was initially set up by the Ministry to process complaints. In his evidence to the Defence Committee, retired Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Field railed against the masses of paperwork involved. The abuse of process by those in the chain of command either to propel a dubious complaint or to hold up a legitimate but inconvenient one is also a worrisome cause of delay. Such abuses can have a devastating impact on individual complainants and on their mental health and well-being. When such cases come into the public domain, the system and confidence in it are undermined.
	I raised the case of Tom Neathway on Second Reading and in Committee. Another concerning case that I would like to mention briefly is that of Sergeant Major Michael Booley, who was Prince Harry’s flying instructor. He accused the Army of gross mistreatment after a four-year dispute that ended his distinguished career. When reading about the case, it is very worrying to see that the service complaints panel found that Major Graham, who Sergeant Major Booley claimed had been
	acting deliberately and maliciously against him, was an unreliable witness and that his conduct not only wronged the complainant, but acted against the interests of his employers in the Army. I think that that is the big issue. Where there is bullying and harassment, it is against the interests of the Army, the RAF or the Navy. We must always keep that central to our thinking and our focus when looking at complaints. That is why the changes set out today are so important.
	I think that it is important to have some sort of definition of undue delay, but I accept that it might not necessarily need to be in the Bill, or even in regulations. It can be something that the ombudsman sets out herself when setting out the definitions that will guide her judgments. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider and discuss with the ombudsman how we can move that forward.

Kevan Jones: I give the Minister 10 out of 10 for her brass neck, because these amendments were tabled subsequent to her losing the vote in Committee, and the Government do not want to press them to a vote tonight for fear that she might lose again. The amendments are consequential to the major change that took place in Committee, namely that to the nature of the ombudsman. What the Minister originally proposed was a dry institution that would have dealt only with maladministration, but the ombudsman’s role has now been opened up to cover a wider range of complaints. I have been arguing for that for a long time, and the Defence Committee also argued effectively for it in its report.
	The Minister said that she could have left out the amendments, but, knowing her civil servants as I do, I do not think they would have thought highly of her if she had attempted to put through legislation that was not appropriately drafted, or if the amendments that were made in Committee resulted in bad law. Based on my experience, I think they would have taken a very dim view of the Minister if she had not tabled the amendments.
	These amendments clarify the two major amendments that changed the nature of the Bill in Committee. Government amendments 1 to 6 make it clear that the ombudsman can only investigate a complaint received from an applicant, and they also address the issue of delays. One of the major frustrations for many of those who have made a complaint is that they have faced delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) has championed their rights, and she and the Defence Committee have highlighted their concerns. I think that the amendments will lead to a change in culture, particularly in the Army. The length of delays in some cases has frankly been ridiculous and that, as my hon. Friend has said, has caused huge grief to some individuals. The amendments may speed up the process and mean that some of the complaints will not end up before the service complaints ombudsman.
	Amendments 7 to 15 ensure that it needs to be specified whether an investigation relates to maladministration, a service complaint or another type of complaint. They also make it clear that an investigation should recommend redress in cases of maladministration or delay. The ombudsman will be allowed to investigate any maladministration, not just that which is being complained about. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and his Committee wanted the ombudsman
	to have those wider powers. I therefore welcome the amendments, which will put into effect the amendments we agreed in Committee.
	The amendments will also allow the ombudsman to decide whether to investigate service complaints as a whole or whether to look at only part of a complaint. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked about frivolous and vexatious cases, but the ombudsman will strike out those that will not go anywhere. The amendments put in place ground rules similar to those that are already in place for the local government ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman, whereby we expect the internal processes to be exhaustive in themselves. The amendments will help address cases that are unduly delayed, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s amendment 22, but it is really difficult to define what is meant by a delay. The amendment would clarify that a delay meant longer than a year or any length of time that the ombudsman thought appropriate. I know why she has tabled it and it is good to discuss it, but I would prefer the matter to be left to the ombudsman.
	A very simple issue should be dealt with very quickly—in a matter of weeks or months—so even if we specified one year, we would ask why it had taken so long. However, I understand the spirit behind my hon. Friend’s amendment. As I have said, the overall framework means that the Army will look at the way it deals with service complaints. In local government and other areas, performance indicators mean that deadlines for internal disciplinary procedures have to be met. I hope that such a culture will be driven within the armed forces to ensure that complaints are dealt with quickly and expeditiously, although I accept that in some cases investigations may take a long time, not only because of the complexity of the complaint but because of the nature of armed forces operations.
	We support the Government amendments, which give credence to the amendment made in Committee. The recommendations for redress are covered in amendments 16 to 21. Findings on maladministration and the ombudsman’s recommendations will be brought forward within a certain time, which will give some comfort to many members of the armed forces who deal with these issues. If the internal chain of command takes an undue time over what should be a simple inquiry, they will know that there is another avenue available. The ombudsman may well need to highlight some of the complaints to the chain of command to ensure that the logjam in such cases is dealt with more quickly. I support the amendments to ensure that we have a system that will not only address the issue of undue delays, but, as we have hoped for a number of years, provide an ombudsman whose remit is wider than just maladministration.

Anna Soubry: I must say that I thought I had been rather gracious in defeat, so it was a little churlish of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—[Interruption.] He shouts louder than I do from a sedentary position. I have to say that it is to the coalition’s credit that all we are doing in the Bill, with the creation of the ombudsman, has been done in just over four years, while the Labour party did not do it in 13 years.
	I want to address amendment 22. I know it is an awful expression, but the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and I are absolutely on the same page.
	We know that undue delays are the absolute devil of any system. It is not a widespread problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has moved to a different place, has quite clearly and properly said, but when it happens, it is a real problem. The attitude is, “Oh, let’s prevaricate. Let’s put up some device. They’ll just go away, or they’ll give up in the end.” We must stop such an attitude, so I completely and totally understand what the hon. Lady is seeking to do. In that respect we are absolutely at one, but not on how we achieve it. I obviously accept the good intentions behind amendment 22, but I shall it because it is not the device to achieve what we both want.
	The time taken in progressing a complaint can be affected by any number of events, such as illness, deployment, which I have mentioned, and training. Sometimes the complainant shows a lack of interest, even though the complaint is valued and should be pursued. A complainant might decide not to pursue it for a period but then come back to it, or they might not be going to pursue it and then realise that they should do so for reasons that we can imagine, but often because others have given them support. Of course, the need to find relevant information can also delay things.
	It is important for all concerned that no strict definition is applied. If one were, it might deter worthy cases from being raised or constrain the ombudsman’s discretion as to what is in scope. I am one who looks for discretion as opposed to fixed, determined dates or targets. It should be for the ombudsman to set out guidance on what individuals might need to consider if they believe that they have suffered undue delay in progressing their complaint.
	This is not a matter for legislation. Putting the advice in the ombudsman’s guidance will ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to adapt it to reflect real experiences. With some complaints, undue delay might be six or nine months. We need that flexibility. That is why it is right to leave it to the ombudsman to set out her—or, in time, his—guidance.

Madeleine Moon: To use the horrible expression that the hon. Lady used, we are on the same page. As of 26 January 2015, 1,033 complaints that had been open since 2013 were still unresolved. We are on the same page in that neither of us wants to see that continue. Let us hope that the ombudsman finds a way to deal with such undue delays.

Anna Soubry: Absolutely. I hope that the hon. Lady is comforted by the fact that we are looking at whether the complaints that are already in the system can be brought into the new system. I imagine that long delay is a matter that we will want to bring to the ombudsman’s attention. Again, it all depends on the nature of the complaint and what the circumstances are. The Second Sea Lord, Sir David Steel, made the point to me that he had seen some cases in the Navy that were huge because they were about complicated allowances and so on and so forth.
	However, it struck me that the cases that the hon. Lady referred to were not particularly complicated. Those delays were absolutely unacceptable. It is often the person-to-person complaints or grievances that must
	be dealt with expeditiously. That is in everybody’s interests, not just the complainant’s. The person against whom the complaint is made also wants determination and justice. Not every complaint is well founded; there are cases in which false allegations are made. It is therefore in the interests of the person against whom the complaint is made that it is dealt with fairly, justly and with all due diligence and expedition.
	For all the reasons that I have given, I resist amendment 22 and urge everyone to accept the other amendments.
	Amendment 1 agreed to.
	Amendments made: 2,page6,line29, after “complaint”, insert
	“, where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined”.
	This amendment makes a drafting change in consequence of amendment 9. It clarifies that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may not investigate a service complaint unless satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined.
	Amendment 3,page6,line31, leave out from “complaint” to end of line 32 and insert
	“(including an allegation of undue delay), where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined;”.
	This amendment makes minor drafting changes, including a change in consequence of amendment 9. It clarifies that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may not investigate an allegation of maladministration unless satisfied that the service complaint to which the allegation relates has been finally determined.
	Amendment 4,page6, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
	“(c) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a service complaint which has not been finally determined;
	(d) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a relevant service matter.”
	This amendment clarifies when the Service Complaints Ombudsman may investigate an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a service complaint or a relevant service matter (as to which, see amendment 6).
	Amendment 5,page6,line37, at end insert—
	“(1A) The following persons are within this subsection—
	(a) in a case relating to a service complaint, the complainant;
	(b) in a case relating to a matter in respect of which a service complaint has not been made, the person who raised the matter,
	and, in relation to a case mentioned in paragraph (b), references in the remainder of this Part to the complainant and to a service complaint are to be read respectively as references to the person and the matter mentioned in that paragraph.”
	This amendment makes provision about who may make an application to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for an investigation under new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
	Amendment 6,page6,line37, at end insert—
	“( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)—
	(a) “relevant service matter” means a matter of a kind about which a service complaint—
	(i) may be made, whether or not at the time of the application to the Ombudsman such a complaint has been made, or
	(ii) could have been made (but for provision made by virtue of section 340B(2)(c));
	(b) the reference to the handling of a matter is to its handling before the making of a service complaint (if any) about the matter.”
	This amendment defines “relevant service matter” for the purposes of paragraph (d) of new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see amendment 4) and makes provision about the reference to the handling of such a matter.
	Amendment 7,page6,line39, after “writing,”, insert—
	“() must specify the kind (or kinds) of investigation which the complainant wishes the Ombudsman to carry out (an investigation under a particular paragraph of subsection (1) being a “kind” of investigation for this purpose),”.
	This amendment provides that an application to the Service Complaints Ombudsman must specify which type or types of investigation the applicant wants the Ombudsman to carry out.
	Amendment 8,page6,line40, leave out “the” and insert “any other”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
	Amendment 9,page6,line42, leave out from beginning to “a” in line 44 and insert—
	“( ) For the purposes of this section, a service complaint has been finally determined where—
	(a) ”.
	This amendment converts new section 340H(3) for the Armed Forces Act 2006 into a general proposition about when a service complaint is to be treated for the purposes of new section 340H as having been finally determined.
	Amendment 10,page7,line5, leave out “that”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 9.
	Amendment 11,page7, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert—
	“( ) The purpose of an investigation is—
	(a) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(a), to decide whether the complaint is well-founded and, if so, to consider what redress (if any) would be appropriate;
	(b) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), to decide—
	(i) whether the allegation is well-founded, and
	(ii) if so, whether the maladministration or undue delay to which the allegation relates has or could have resulted in injustice being sustained by the complainant.”
	This amendment clarifies the purpose of an investigation under each paragraph of new section 340H(1) for the Armed Forces Act 2006.
	Amendment 12,page7,line11, at end insert—
	“(4A) The power to carry out an investigation under subsection (1)(a) or (b) includes power to investigate any maladministration in the handling of the service complaint where it becomes apparent to the Ombudsman during the course of an investigation that any such maladministration may have occurred.”
	This amendment provides for the circumstances in which the Service Complaints Ombudsman has power to investigate maladministration in the handling of a service complaint (other than any maladministration that the complainant has specifically alleged).
	Amendment 13,page7,line12, after “application”, insert
	“in respect of a service complaint that has been finally determined”.
	This amendment is consequential on the amendments to new section 340H(1) for the Armed Forces Act 2006 (in particular amendments 2 to 4).
	Amendment 14,page7,line25, leave out “investigated an application relating to” and insert
	“carried out an investigation under subsection (1)(a) or (b) in relation to”.
	This amendment confines new section 340H(8), which prevents the Service Complaints Ombudsman from investigating subsequent applications relating to a service complaint that the Ombudsman has already investigated, to cases where the Ombudsman has carried out an investigation under new section 340H(1)(a) or (b) in relation to the complaint.
	Amendment 15,page7,line31, at end insert “;
	(b) whether to investigate a service complaint, or an allegation, as a whole or only in particular respects.”
	This amendment provides that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may investigate a service complaint, or an allegation, in whole or in part.
	Amendment 16,page7,line44, after “investigation”, insert “under section 340H(1)(b)”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendments to new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
	Amendment 17,page8,line43, at end insert
	“, and
	(b) any recommendations referred to in subsection (2A).”
	This amendment requires the Service Complaints Ombudsman to include, in a report under new section 340L, any recommendations required by subsection (2A) (see amendment 18).
	Amendment 18,page9, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
	“(2A) Those recommendations are—
	(a) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(a) where the Ombudsman finds that the =-service complaint to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) on what redress would be appropriate;
	(b) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(b), (c) or (d) where the Ombudsman finds that the allegation to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding;
	(c) where, by virtue of section 340H(4A), the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding.”
	This amendment provides for the recommendations which the Service Complaints Ombudsman can make as a result of findings on an investigation under any paragraph of new section 340H(1) or by virtue of new section 340H(6).
	Amendment 19,page9,line5, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2A)(b) or (c)”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.
	Amendment 20,page9,line8, after “maladministration”, insert
	“or undue delay to which the finding relates”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.
	Amendment 21,page9,line10, after “maladministration”, insert “or undue delay”. —(Anna Soubry.)
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.
	Third Reading

Anna Soubry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank the members of the Public Bill Committee, who did an excellent job of ensuring that the issues covered by the Bill were thoroughly looked at. The service complaints system is not one of which many Members of this House have first-hand experience. It is therefore to the credit of the members of the Committee
	that they quickly grasped the key issues behind the Bill. I am very grateful for the contributions that were made from both sides.
	In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her involvement in these issues over a number of years. She played a key role in Committee and our debates this afternoon, and I know she feels strongly about the issues she raises. I commend her for her tenacity and for the passion with which she makes her case. I am delighted that she will continue to pursue all those matters and to scrutinise the Bill should it have the good fortune of reaching the statute book. She will not give up on her campaign to ensure that things are done properly by all those who serve in our armed forces, and the Bill is undoubtedly better because of her involvement.
	I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There is some rivalry between us, because we went to opposing schools—although not at the same time; he is much younger than I am. I like to think that that is the reason for some of our rivalry in our discourse in the House and Committee. He has approached these matters in a constructive and knowledgeable way. I wish to emphasise that, because he speaks on the basis of knowledge having served as a Defence Minister, and he therefore knows what he is talking about even if we do not always agree. He has done much to ensure that the Bill has been properly scrutinised, which is important in these proceedings.
	I thank the Defence Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). He is no longer in his place, but I am sure he is about somewhere and hopefully he will read this debate. The Committee produced an excellent and detailed report on the Bill last year, which has done much to focus our debates on the most significant issues. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made clear that his Committee will continue to do the job that it has been doing over a number of years, to ensure that we have a good, fair, robust complaints system in the way we have identified. In that respect we are absolutely in agreement.
	The Bill does two important things: it improves the system for handling service complaints, and—we seem to have forgotten this because it is not contentious, although it is incredibly important—it ensures that we can provide funding anywhere in the world to organisations, notably our great military charities, that support our armed forces community. It is clear from debates on the Bill that there is general agreement about the need to reform the services complaints system, and we all agree on the importance of having a system that is fair, effective, swift when it has to be, and efficient.
	Having a robust complaints system is a key part of maintaining morale and therefore ensuring operational effectiveness—a happy crew, ship, team or whatever will work better. That is pretty obvious; unfortunately, it is not always obvious to some, although I hope it will be from now on. It is not a “nice to have” but an essential part of the covenant between our society and those who are willing to lay down their lives to defend it.
	As I said, clause 4 has attracted less interest because it is not contentious, although it is important. It will allow us to support organisations that help our armed
	forces community anywhere in the world, which we all agree is a good thing. The amendments will mean that the proposed service complaints ombudsman will have a wider role than first envisaged. He or she will be able to look at the substance of complaints and at any maladministration in the way it has been handled, not just that alleged by the complainant. The ombudsman will also be able to investigate allegations of undue delay at earlier stages in the process, whether or not a complaint has been made, and that is a good thing.
	I will not pretend that this is what the Government initially wanted, but we have listened to arguments from all sides and we have accepted them. I emphasise that on balance I believe that the changes have left us with a stronger and more robust system of oversight with more protections for the individual. The Bill now delivers the right complaints system for our servicemen and women, and on that basis I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Kevan Jones: Portland school, as opposed to Hartland school, but both rejoicing in their being in or close to Worksop.

Kevan Jones: We at Portland were always better at snowball fighting than Hartland, Mr Speaker.
	This is a very important day. The Bill brings into being an armed forces ombudsman, something that is long overdue. I have been involved in this issue since I came to Parliament, both as a member of the Defence Committee and as a Defence Minister in the previous Government. This day will be pleasing to those who have campaigned over many years for a system of oversight and redress for our armed forces. I am thinking of the families of those involved in Deepcut and the recommendations of Mr Justice Blake’s report. People have campaigned over many years to get to this point today.
	The Minister asked why the previous Government did not introduce this measure during our 13 years in office. We did: we set up the Armed Forces Service Complaints Commissioner. Did some of us at the time want to go further? Yes, we did. I argued for that very strongly, along with other members of the Defence Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) who was on the Opposition Whip’s Bench a moment ago. He made very strong representations to try to get to this point in 2006. I have to say that the people who argued against it were the conservative elements of the chain of command and the Conservative Front-Bench team of the time, who said that it would be the end of the world if we even had a Service Complaints Commissioner.
	Those same voices thought that this next step would be a step too far, which is possibly why the Government were initially resistant in Committee to the changes. I said in Committee and I say it again now: I do not think there is anything in the Bill that senior members of the chain of command in our armed forces should be fearful of. If we look back to when we introduced the Service Complaints Commissioner, there was an argument that people would be interfering with the chain of command. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what has happened is that senior military
	personnel now see that the way in which Susan Atkins has carried out the function of Service Complaints Commissioner has added not only to the process of accountability and transparency, but with the recommendations that she has brought forward. I put on record my thanks to her for how she has carried out the job. She saw the limitations that she was acting under right from the start, but like any good regulator she pushed where she could and brought about change within the system.

Bob Stewart: Just to back up what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it is the way Dr Atkins has carried out her duties that has encouraged everyone—even dinosaurs like me—to think that this is a seriously good thing and a step forward. I am delighted to say that the people who, like myself, were against the idea to start with, have been totally converted by the work of Susan Atkins.

Kevan Jones: That is the change. I am glad to see dinosaurs still alive and kicking on the Conservative Back Benches, and long may they live.
	I wish Nicola Williams all the best in the job she has before her. The Bill sets out a new era, but I think it will be very rewarding for her to ensure that the issues we have raised during the passage of the Bill are addressed.
	One of the issues to be addressed, and which the armed forces have to wake up to, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): the delay in dealing with complaints. Most organisations, whether companies, local councils or even central Government these days, would not put up with the delay in dealing with complaints. The armed forces need a performance mechanism to enable complaints to be dealt with simply, quickly and effectively, and the
	nearer to the source of the complaint the better. Even if they do not like the outcome, at least early resolution avoids the added injustice of people thinking they are being messed around by the system. I just hope that the armed forces, particularly the Army, will take that on board and that we can ensure the speedy resolution of some complaints.
	Of course, the perfect position would be if the ombudsman did not have anything to do, but that is not going to happen—there is already a backlog. Over time, however, not only will she be able to suggest improvements to the system, but I hope that slowly we can educate people in the chain of command that a more effective way of dealing with complaints and disciplinary action in general would be a better way forward.
	I thank the Defence Committee for its work on the Bill. As I said, it is a good example of a Select Committee—the current Committee and its predecessors over several years—taking a keen interest in a subject, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and not letting go of an issue. It has kept on pressing for this type of redress system. I also think that the changes made in the Bill Committee have improved the Bill—the Government were wise to accept the amendments, because had we not done that now, we would have had to return to the issue in four or five years’ time—and I wish the Bill Godspeed through its remaining stages. We must support our armed forces not only with our words in the House, but with an effective system that supports armed forces personnel on the rare occasions—as the Minister said, they are rare—when things go wrong and which gives them the justice and support they deserve.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed, with amendments.

Consumer Rights Bill

Consideration of Lords message (Order, 28 January)

Mr Speaker: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 12M and 12S. If the House agrees to those amendments, I shall cause the appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
	I have selected amendment (a) to Lords amendment 12Q, which stands in the name of Philip Davies.
	After clause 32

Secondary ticketing platforms

Jo Swinson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12J.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate the following:
	Lords amendments 12K to 12P.
	Lords amendment 12Q and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 12R and 12S.

Jo Swinson: It is a veritable alphabet soup of amendments, Mr Speaker.
	On 24 February in the other place, the Government agreed with amendments tabled by Lord Moynihan to introduce light-touch regulation of the online secondary ticketing market, alongside a statutory review of the market. The Bill has therefore returned to us for further consideration. It sets outa simple, modernframework of consumer rights that will promote growth throughconfident consumers driving innovation and more competitivemarkets. Consumers, knowing their rights are protected if things go wrong, will have greater confidence to take up new products and switch suppliers, which will help to create a competitive and thriving economy.
	The Bill contains important new protections for consumers alongside measures to lower regulatory burdens for business. All this together will make markets work better, which is good for consumers, good for business and therefore good for growth. It will have an impact across all sectors of the economy and address many of the concerns we hear daily in our own constituencies.
	Chapter 1 gives consumers a new right to a refund on faulty goods within 30 days. Chapter 2 protects consumers in law for the first time when they buy digital content, while schedule 5 means business will get more notice of routine inspections by trading standards. These represent an important package of reforms that businesses and consumer groups have been waiting for and preparing for. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will alert business to the forthcoming changes well ahead of the Act coming into force.
	Since December, there has been one outstanding issue to resolve before the Bill can be sent for Royal Assent—how to address issues in the online secondary ticketing market. This is the market where fans sell tickets they can no longer use to fans who missed out on
	tickets the first time round. It is a much safer and more convenient environment for fans to buy and sell tickets than dealing with shady individuals in the backstreets around venues.
	There are some concerns, however, about how this relatively young market is working, as I explained when we last considered this issue in January. I know that many hon. Members have been following this area very closely, and I appreciate the keen interest in this issue. I know that several members of the all-party parliamentary group and of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport are in their places today, and I pay tribute to their extensive work on this issue over a number of years.
	The Competition and Markets Authority has also been active in this area. I warmly welcome its announcement last week that it has secured further protection for consumers. This work makes an important contribution to our parliamentary debates. To deal with them, there has been general agreement across the House on two central points: we agree on the importance of a safe and secure environment for fans to buy and sell tickets; and we agree on the need for event organisers, the marketplaces themselves and enforcers to play their part in combating fraudulent practices in the resale market.
	We were not, however, able to support an amendment made by the House of Lords in November. While that amendment aimed to increase transparency in the market, we were concerned about privacy and unintended consequences for the secondary market. We did not think that that amendment would allow the secondary market to continue to thrive or to be a proportionate and appropriate response to concerns that had been raised. Since December, we have been working intensively with all the relevant stakeholders to see if a compromise could be reached—a compromise that allows fans to resell tickets they cannot use, but one that also tackles some of the known issues in the market.

Philip Davies: The Minister in the House of Lords said that the Government were accepting these amendments on the basis that people would still be able to sell on their tickets at any price they could command, and that the sports bodies concerned could not blacklist anybody who decided to do that. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position and the basis on which they are accepting the amendments?

Jo Swinson: I am certainly happy to confirm that position. There is already protection in the unfair trading regulations, and any unfair terms can be challenged in law, so they should not be included. There would be many circumstances in which the terms surrounding the cancellation of ticket reselling would be deemed to be unfair. My only caveat would be that, in some circumstances, such terms might be appropriate. If, for example, a particular category of ticket aimed at a particular sector such as a youth audience were sold at a discount and it was important to increase access to such events for a particular group, some restrictions on resale could be justified and the terms deemed to be fair. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will reassured by what I have said.
	On 24 February, the other place agreed to add provisions to the Bill to protect consumers in the secondary ticket market. Those addressed the concerns I raised during our last debate and, importantly, they achieved cross-party
	welcome and support. The provisions cover four main issues. First, they put on a statutory basis the review that I announced here on 12 January. They also give more details on what the review will cover and how it will be conducted. It will be a full review of consumer protection measures in the secondary ticketing market.
	As I explained during our last debate, this will be an independent review and it will be presented to Parliament. The review will start this summer and be presented to Parliament within a year of the duty coming into force. The review will look at the current law, including any new provisions, and assess how best to protect consumers. It will be an invaluable opportunity to gather evidence on how the market works and how consumers can best be protected when operating within it.
	Secondly, there is a requirement that online ticketing marketplaces report criminal activity on their sites. Where they are aware of such activity—for example, fraud—they must report it to the police and the event organiser. This new requirement addresses an issue many hon. Members raised during the Bill’s passage. There is criminal activity and fraud in this market, as there can be in any market, and we should be concerned about that.

Philip Davies: The Minister is being typically kind in giving way. What measures exist to prevent people from setting up online sites offshore, and how would the law apply to an offshore internet site that was selling on tickets in a secondary market?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman has identified challenges that exist in regulation of all kinds that applies to the internet and to foreign sites and companies. I do not think that those challenges can be the basis for an argument against trying to make the market fairer. We have built a consensus with the key players in the industry, and have arrived at proposals that they believe to be workable. We have a secondary ticketing market that works very successfully for many consumers in this country, and because there are existing, established providers, it is unlikely that there will be a sudden exodus of tickets to sites abroad. Consumers will also be aware of the protections from which they benefit when using sites in the United Kingdom. The legislation will cover sites with which they are already familiar.
	There is no benefit in making crimes “doubly” illegal, but it is important for us to improve reporting and enforcement, and the new requirement to report fraud will help in that regard.
	The final two changes that we are making address the issues of transparency and consumer protection directly. To improve transparency, those who sell tickets online must give buyers some basic information. That information, when applicable, consists of the face value of the ticket, the seat number, and any restrictions relating to the person who can use the ticket. When those in the secondary market, event organisers or certain other connected persons are selling the tickets themselves, they must make that clear. The provision is complementary to, and supplements, existing law. It ensures that buyers will be given some of the most important information that they will need in order to make an informed choice.
	Crucially, the list of information that must be provided does not include the name of the individual seller, so individual consumers will not have to give their names
	when they sell online. As was pointed out when we considered the earlier amendments in January, that is an important way of protecting sellers from identity theft. We are providing a finite list of the most important pieces of information that a consumer will need to make an informed purchasing decision, thus ensuring that there is compliance with relevant EU law.
	I know that some Members—including the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—fear that the new information will allow event organisers to cancel tickets or blacklist sellers. That might, of course, be unfair on fans, and give those event organisers unfair control of the market. We share those Members’ concern, which is why our provisions build in consumer safeguards. An event organiser will not be able to cancel a ticket or blacklist a seller merely because the ticket is resold or offered for resale, unless there is a term in the original sales contract that allows for that, and, perhaps more important, the term itself is fair. Terms that prohibit resale are not always fair, and those that are not fair do not bind the consumer. Similarly, terms that seek to prohibit resale at or above a particular price are not always fair, and not always binding on the consumer.
	The combination of transparency and consumer safeguards will allow the secondary market to flourish. It will ensure that no one, including event organisers, has a monopoly on resales, or an unfettered ability to set prices in the secondary market. The new system of light-touch regulation will make buyers and sellers confident about using the market. It will make the market more dynamic, and will benefit consumers further by creating competition in relation to price and quality of service. The review that I mentioned earlier will ensure that that outcome materialises in practice. If other issues arise, or if the new legislation has any unintended consequences, the review will pick that up.
	The hon. Member for Shipley has shown great interest in the Bill, and has brought a great deal of energy to our debates.

Philip Davies: Is that a compliment?

Jo Swinson: It is indeed a compliment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes it as one.
	If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were passed, chapter 3B would cease to apply two years after coming into force. The Government share his fear that regulation of the resale market could threaten the current online ticket marketplaces. That is why chapter 3B makes it clear that tickets cannot be cancelled or their sellers blacklisted merely because the tickets are offered for resale, unless certain strict conditions are met. The consumer protection that amendment 12Q seeks to introduce is already part of these provisions. Striking this down after two years would neither help nor protect consumers.

Philip Davies: The Government have set great store by the review they are going to carry out after the election and after the legislation has been introduced. Surely a sunset clause of two years will give that review much more power, because it will mean that by the end of the review the Government will have to make specific proposals to implement its recommendations, rather than just a review taking place and dying?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend clearly takes that view. However, I think that two years after the legislation has come into force is not very long at all. It would be very shortly after the review had concluded and the Government had issued their response. Indeed this would already have pre-empted the outcome of the review by saying it should be sunsetted, because if the review finds that the new provisions are working well, it will be required to take action to make that continue. The review might recommend removal of the provisions, but in that scenario we would also want the benefit of the advice on the best timing in which to do so, rather than some arbitrary date being imposed. However, what I would say to reassure my hon. Friend is that if such action was required as a result of the review, the Government could use primary legislation to repeal chapter 3B without needing a sunset clause.
	Finally on amendment 12Q, we should take a step back and look at how it could impact on the market. I am sure I do not need to remind this House of the disruption caused by changing the law too often. Changes and reforms are necessary and important, but there are costs to business in implementing a new regime, and to have it repealed wholesale after two years would incur significant costs.
	We must also consider the major events we host in this country. Amendment 12Q would mean that fans of some such events benefit from the new regime, but others do not. For example, fans buying and selling tickets for events such as the world athletics championship in 2017, possibly the biggest athletics event we will have hosted since the Olympics, would lose out. That would not be fair on those fans.
	In conclusion, we believe the provisions agreed in the other place create a proportionate, light-touch regime to protect consumers and the secondary market. I encourage Members to support them and allow this important Bill to move to Royal Assent.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that this issue has now come back to this place, as we have always believed that the Consumer Rights Bill gives an opportunity to provide real protection against rip-off practices, particularly in the secondary ticketing market.
	We all know that healthy, fair and competitive markets are vital to building an economy that works for both consumers and businesses. We also know that well-informed consumers make for better customers and better-informed citizens get better outcomes in dealing with both the public and private sector. Ticket touting is a classic example of a market where a group of traders are colluding to restrict supply and so push up prices, ripping off consumers by overcharging them and as a result shattering the dreams of many fans. We have argued this throughout the passage of the Bill and, while we are pleased that Ministers are now in agreement, they have been dragged here kicking and screaming to make these changes.
	I was delighted that in the last sentence of her speech the Minister agreed with the Lords amendments, but it has taken her three years to do so. That sums up this Administration. They rail against good ideas from Opposition Members, charities, non-governmental organisations, trade bodies, trade unions, the public and others, and then they are eventually embarrassed
	into having to bring forward the very provisions they have railed against. We have witnessed that with regularity, first on allowing the Groceries Code Adjudicator to fine people, and also on giving tied landlords a better deal with pubcos and better enforcement of the national minimum wage to name just a few, and they even had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do something about zero-hours contracts.
	Now we have the secondary ticketing issue, where the Minister and the Government are arguing against their views of just a few weeks ago. On 21 January 2011 the Culture Secretary told Parliament:
	“Ticket resellers act like classic entrepreneurs”
	and that concerns about touting represented
	“the chattering middle classes and champagne socialists”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1186, 1187.]
	That is obviously not the case now.
	On Friday 6 February 2015 the Daily Mirror quoted the Culture Secretary as saying unscrupulous websites have every right to hoover up sought-after tickets for football matches and pop concerts and flog them at five or 10 times the asking price. He said:
	“There’s nothing wrong with a healthy second market”
	and went on to say
	“I don't have any problem with it.”
	He obviously does now.
	On 12 January 2015, the Minister herself argued:
	“There is a more substantive issue of principle. Is it right for Government to tell consumers that they cannot sell items that they have bought second-hand at above the price that they paid for them?”—[Official Report, 12 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 661.]
	She obviously thinks that that is now okay, just a few short weeks later.
	Labour MPs have been campaigning on this issue for several years, and have supported amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill right from the start of its progress through this place, but it has taken the Government more than a year—during which time they lost one vote and voted against the measures on three occasions—to admit that they were wrong.
	I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). When, in future, people buy tickets on the secondary market to attend that cup final they have always dreamed of—just a dream for many of us—or for that concert by the band they always wanted to see or that festival on their bucket list, they will be able to thank her for her courage and perseverance in getting us here today and for her role as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. Her co-chair, the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), also deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which he has cajoled his colleagues to come this far and brought his considerable experience of the industry to this place. I wish him well in pastures new after he steps down at the general election. The all-party group recommended
	“greater transparency in the secondary market, in particular on whether the seller is a professional or occasional seller, and what the face value and individual characteristics of the ticket are.”
	This is a huge issue, as the secondary ticketing market in the UK is valued at more than £1 billion a year. We must protect consumers in that marketplace, and that is
	why we have pressed so hard for these amendments. Let us look at two recent examples of why the measures are needed. In November 2013 there was outcry after all 20,000 tickets for Monty Python’s reunion performance sold out in three quarters of a minute, only to reappear on secondary ticketing websites at more than 15 times their face value. That was not the work of the Messiah; it was the work of a very naughty boy. High-profile concerts by the Stone Roses at Heaton Park in July 2012—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) went to all of them—were being advertised on secondary ticketing websites for more than £1,000 after tickets had sold out, having had an original face value of just £55.
	The Government amendments, although late and forced, are very welcome. We agree with the new clause creating a duty to provide information about tickets. This covers the information that sellers of secondary tickets will now have to provide when reselling tickets. That information includes the seat number, or detailed location if the event is standing only, and any additional restrictions on the use of the ticket. For example, information will have to be given on whether the seat has a restricted view—I am sure we have all ended up in restricted view seats; perhaps I do so because I go for the cheap seats—or whether admittance is restricted to over-18s.
	The information will also have to include the face value of the ticket and the original selling price, and state whether the seller is employed by or linked to either a secondary seller’s site or an event organiser. On 12 January, the Minister spoke against the notion of transparency, but it is difficult to see how the proposal now being put forward by the Government, agreeing with the Lords amendments, overcomes her previous concerns.
	We agree with the new clause on the prohibition on cancellation or blacklisting tickets. This will mean that event organisers will not be able to cancel tickets arbitrarily just because they are being resold. When we debated this matter on 12 January—a date that will no doubt be etched on the Minister’s mind—a similar amendment was tabled by the Opposition to protect fans from being unable to sell their tickets on. The Minister said that she could not support the amendment, yet the Government have now backed an amendment on the exactly same issue.
	We also agree with the new clause providing for a duty to report criminal activity. This places a duty on the secondary ticketing websites to report it to the police when they discover that a seller is using the site to commit fraud. We have significant concerns, however, that the measures will not be properly enforced, given that we have heard recently from the Trading Standards Institute that trading standards departments have been cut by an average of 40% since 2010.
	We agree with the new clause creating a duty to review measures relating to secondary ticketing. There must be a statutory review of the consumer issues in the secondary market within 12 months of the Act coming into force, as the market moves so quickly. This will offer an opportunity to review whether the requirement for companies to provide more information about the tickets being sold has enabled action to be taken to tackle ticket touts.
	There are a number of things that we want the Government to do in any such review. Having said that, it will probably be my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) sitting on the Government Benches and taking these matters forward after 7 May, but I will put these points on the record none the less. The review should consider: the enforcement of consumer regulations; online software—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned enforcement for companies based outside the UK—especially the kind that can hoover up large volumes of tickets in a short space of time and push up prices; tickets that never reach primary markets; lost tax revenue to the Treasury; and additional charges.
	We have seen the Competition and Markets Authority take action on additional charges, but they still seem excessive. Lastly, we would like that review also to examine collusion, as there is widespread concern that some “secondary ticket sales” are actually event organisers seeking to use these sites to sell tickets at higher prices without being accountable to fans for doing so. We hope that the review will examine such issues.
	We very much welcome the Government U-turn on this issue but just wish it had happened a lot sooner. As for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), does he not want to stand on the side of his constituents who are being ripped off by secondary ticket sites? Perhaps it would have been better if his amendment had introduced a sunset clause on this Government, meaning that they expired five years after their introduction—perhaps that is what we should do on 7 May.
	We have managed to get to a position where we can protect consumers when they buy tickets on the secondary market. Be it a ticket for a popular west end show bought as an anniversary present, a ticket for your beloved Arsenal or for my club, the famous Heart of Midlothian football club, a ticket for a sold out One Direction concert—do they actually sell out?—or a ticket for an iconic sporting event such as Wimbledon, we can now buy our secondary tickets with confidence, protection and transparency. That is why we agree with the Lords amendments.

Philip Davies: It is difficult to know where to start, but I shall begin by saying that there was one thing on which I very much agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which was when he said at the start that the Government had in effect done a massive U-turn—they clearly have. My colleagues ought to be aware that in a few minutes’ time, or whenever it may be, they will be encouraged by the Minister to vote for something that they have twice been invited to vote against. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that if his party is lucky enough to be in a position to put a coalition together after the election and he is thus thrashing around for coalition partners, he will have seen at first hand what happens in coalition with the Lib Dems: they find it easy to change their view on something within a few weeks, and usually it does not take them that long.

Clive Efford: On changing minds, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look closer to home, as the Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind about TV debates.

Philip Davies: You would rule me out of order if we got into a slanging match about TV debates, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is an affable chap and I am happy to have a cup of tea with him afterwards so we can discuss the merits of the TV debates. I do not think this is the right venue for such a discussion, as I would rightly be ruled out of order if I were to go down that route. I knew it was a mistake to give way to him.
	Once upon a time, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, the Conservative party used to believe in the free market. It appears to be an increasingly alien concept these days, but I am wedded to the idea and I always thought it was what the Conservative party believed in. I am talking about the idea that if someone owned some property, they were free to sell it on to somebody at a price they were happy to sell it for and others were happy to pay. That is the whole essence of the free market, and it happens with every possible thing we can ever buy, including houses—they are in short supply at the moment too, with much more demand than supply. But I worry that Government Members seem to have given up completely on the free market.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Philip Davies: I am happy to give way to someone who never believed in the free market.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman has a point. The free market operates where supply can actually be increased. Where there is a limited supply, the price simply increases and people are exploited.

Philip Davies: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments we have had in the past, but what we are talking about does not just happen with tickets. For example, limited edition products are sold all the time—there is a limited number of them. When a painting is sold, there is just one and the demand for it may well outstrip the supply. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that wherever demand outstrips supply and the supply cannot be increased, nobody should ever be able to make a profit? That may well be the policy the Labour party is arriving at: nobody is ever allowed to make a profit. That is a perfectly respectable position for the hon. Gentleman to hold, and he holds his positions consistently, and with great vigour, honour and determination. I do not blame those in the Labour party for being in favour of these kind of restrictions: because they are socialists, they do not want people to make a profit and they want to regulate every aspect of people’s lives. That is fair enough; I respect them for that, although I do not like it. What I object to is the fact that Conservative Members are being asked to give up on the free market.

Jim Cunningham: I always have great respect for anything the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have to tell him that the UK Independence party has adopted the free market mantle now, as his party has gradually eschewed it.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman kindly said that he had a great deal of respect for what I had to say, which is certainly more than can be said for most people on the Government Benches, so I am very grateful to him for that kind comment. It probably will not do
	much for his reputation within his party, but I am grateful for it, because I have a great deal of respect for him, too.
	I believe in the free market and am not ashamed of doing so. I believe it acts in the best interests of the consumer. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said he was surprised that I was not standing up for my constituents as consumers, but I am. I believe in the free market; I believe that people should have the right to sell on their ticket if they buy one and then find that they cannot go to the event or that somebody else is prepared to pay a higher price for it. I will happily take my chances with my electorate at the general election, to see whether they are happy that I look after their interests, just as he will put his record before his electorate at the general election—we shall see how we both get on.
	The Minister glossed over the fact that the Government have done a complete U-turn on this issue. I do not know whether she is embarrassed about that or not, but I would be if I were in her shoes.

Christopher Chope: I am surprised to hear about the extent of the U-turn. Can my hon. Friend explain why there has been such a U-turn? Surely the Government are normally consistent—or try to be consistent—from one week to the next.

Philip Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping a straight face when he said that, but it is not for me to explain it. I have certainly kept my position consistent, and I have to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on maintaining a consistent position on these issues. I can only presume that the interference of our Liberal Democrat coalition friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has led to this about-turn.
	We have an issue here, because the Minister seems to be arguing that nobody in the secondary market has anything to worry about and that their industry is going to thrive, prosper and flourish, yet all the sporting bodies and events organisers, and some of our hon. Friends, are cock-a-hoop about this. They are not cock-a-hoop because they think the secondary ticketing market is going to thrive and prosper as a result of this Lords amendment being accepted; they are cock-a-hoop because they think the exact opposite will happen. I have to congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has been very persistent on this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). They obviously knew what they were dealing with in Liberal Democrat Ministers; they knew that they were always in the game for a U-turn whenever the Lib Dems were involved, and I congratulate them on their industry and initiative in that regard.
	The question nobody has asked is why are the sporting bodies and events organisers so keen for the full details of the ticket—the row number, the section number, the ticket number, the seat number and the whole lot—to be published online? Let me give hon. Members the answer. They are so desperate to have that information so that they can see who bought the ticket, cancel the ticket if it gets sold on to somebody else, blacklist the person involved and prevent them from ever buying a ticket in
	the future. The only reason they want this information is so that they can use that information to stop this market.
	The Government have said that these bodies will not be able to do that—the law will say they cannot do that—but I would like to know from the Minister who is going to police that? When somebody turns up to an event with a ticket bought from a secondary ticketing site and the event organiser says, “Sorry, I’m not going to let you in. We don’t like the look of that ticket. We saw it in the secondary ticketing industry”, who is going to be there from the Government to say, “No, this chap should be allowed into this event”? Nobody will be there. That person will be sent away and never get to see the event they wanted to see—the Government will have let them down. Even if the person went to court and won the case, they would still have not got to the event they particularly wanted to see. It is an absolute con if consumers think this will protect their interests when they buy a ticket from the secondary market. The sporting bodies know it and the hon. Members here who have been agitating for this measure know it, and that is why the sporting bodies and the events organisers are so keen to have this information. The Minister says that people cannot be blacklisted, but who is going to police that? Who is going to stop it? What resources are the Government putting in to make sure that does not happen? The answer is none. Basically, there are just warm words. The Government are repeating what they did on immigration, which is making a promise that they know they are in no position to keep. It is that kind of thing that brings politics into disrepute.
	The Minister said that consumers could now have confidence in the market, but where is the evidence that consumers do not have confidence in the secondary ticketing market? Consumers have confidence in the secondary ticketing market, but the sporting bodies and the big event organisers do not. If people did not have confidence in it, they would not be buying tickets there in the first place. The problem for these big bodies and these multi-millionaire music organisers is that too many people do have confidence in the secondary ticketing market, which is why they want to damage it. That is why we should reject these Lords amendments this evening.
	What will happen is exactly what I predicted in an intervention on the Minister. We have a successful online secondary ticketing industry in this country. Lots of people are employed in it and it works very well. When the regulations come in and the things that I describe happen, the companies will have no alternative but to up sticks and locate themselves in a foreign jurisdiction, taking their jobs with them. They will set up their sites and advertise their tickets in offshore territories around the world. It will make absolutely no difference to the consumer. In fact, as the Minister said, it will weaken the consumer protection that we currently have in the secondary ticketing market and it will make absolutely no difference to people selling on their tickets at a profit. This is just a job export scheme from a successful industry in this country for no good reason at all. It is an absolute travesty that the Government are giving in on this particular issue.
	Amendment (a) would introduce a sunset clause to the Bill. A few weeks ago in a parliamentary question, I asked how many Government Bills had contained sunset
	clauses in recent years. I am pleased to say that hundreds upon hundreds of pieces of legislation have contained sunset clauses. The Government are quite happy to put sunset clauses in legislation. In fact, we should have more sunset clauses in legislation to see how the provisions work in practice.
	There is a huge divergence of opinion over the impact of the legislation. The Minister says that the secondary market will flourish and expand, that everything will be fine and dandy and that nothing will change. The sporting bodies, music event organisers and secondary ticketing market do not agree. Undoubtedly, we will end up with some kind of court case to determine what terms and conditions are fair or unfair. Who will decide that? It will not be this House; it will be unelected judges, and all because the Government do not have the guts to put in the Bill what they consider to be fair or unfair.
	When those court decisions are reached, surely this House and the House of Lords should revisit the issue to see whether everybody’s intentions have been met. The Government said that they will review the industry after this legislation comes into effect, but we all know that that is the old civil service talk for kicking it into touch or the long grass. That promise is designed just to get us over this debate. Afterwards, it will be, “Well, we won’t worry about that review.” It will just end up in the quicksand somewhere. Everybody knows what happens with these so-called reviews: they die a death and nothing ever happens. My amendment would ensure that that review was meaningful, that something positive would come out of this, and that we could start again.
	This legislation is a fundamental infringement of the free market. Whether or not people agree with the Lords amendment, we are making a very big change. We have barely any time to debate it. It was not debated on Third Reading, because it was not even in the Bill. It is most unsatisfactory to pass serious legislation in this way. Before this amendment, I supported this legislation. I have voted for a Bill that now contains something I would have voted against. I have no opportunity to say that I do not agree with this particular Bill. That cannot be the way to pass important legislation. A sunset clause would allow us to come back to this matter properly in two years’ time, and to start afresh with a Government Bill in which everything is debated properly right from the word go.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give me some idea of how much damage might be done to the industry during a two-year phase?

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister argued that two years was very short. In two years’ time, the whole industry could have upped sticks and gone abroad. It may well be that my two-year sunset clause is too long. I will happily be chastised for that, but I thought it was important that we put a line in the sand. I thought that two years would give us a reasonable time to see how the legislation worked with different tournaments and different music events. It is ample time for people to consider the effects. If those people who are in favour of the Lords amendments are so confident in their arguments, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause. If everything is fine and dandy and none of my fears comes to
	fruition, the Government will happily reintroduce the legislation and it will sail through because it has been shown to have worked. They do not like the sunset clause because they know that the point I am making is the real agenda behind this Bill, and they do not want to be rumbled.
	Once the Bill is on the statute book, the Government think that that will be it and nobody will bother or have the courage to revisit it, and I suspect that they are right. That is why I have tabled my amendment. I understand that there may be some difficulty in having a vote on it, even though it is sensible, and I am sorry that the Government have refused to accept it. This is an unfair and unnecessary intrusion into the free market. Who knows what consequences will flow from this legislation? I shall urge my colleagues to do what they have done twice in recent times already, and vote down the Lords amendment. I shall be interested to see how many of my colleagues vote for something that they have happily voted against in recent weeks and how, as a general election is coming, they will justify their action to their constituents. I shall happily be able to tell my constituents that I stuck to my guns, that I did not change my mind and that that is why I do not want to be in coalition with these wishy-washy Liberal Democrats any more.

Sharon Hodgson: As many in the House are aware, I have been interested in the secondary ticketing market for many years now, and, alongside the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), I have co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, the report of which spearheaded the former amendments to those we are debating today.
	It is my long-standing belief that for a long time things have needed to change in the sector, as more and more fans are being ripped off and exploited by unscrupulous touts, and ordinary people are being priced out of seeing the artists, shows, or teams that they love. The full extent of the problem was clear last week when the Competition and Markets Authority, after consulting the major ticket re-sellers, published a new code of conduct—an agreement for which the CMA was happy to take all the credit, somewhat ignoring all the hard work and campaigning over many years of Members, peers and other industry bodies, and on which we are now legislating.
	However, that small gripe aside, on the very same day that the new code of conduct was announced, a person could go on some of those companies’ websites and find tickets, guaranteed, for the upcoming boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao in Las Vegas. On one site, the cheapest came in at just under £4,000, and the most expensive floor seats at more than £32,000. That was despite the fact that last week there were no official tickets yet on sale and original ticket prices had not even been agreed. That is a ludicrous situation which leaves the public totally misinformed about the marketplace and serves only further to inflate prices when the tickets become available.

Mike Weatherley: Does the hon. Lady agree that it was bizarre that the CMA came out with guidance only days before Parliament was debating the
	issue and passing laws in this House? It seemed almost to usurp what we are doing.

Sharon Hodgson: I totally agree. As I have mentioned, I was surprised that in the press coverage the CMA was taking all the credit for the new measures given that Parliament has been pushing for this in both Houses. As the new authority, which is replacing the OFT, has now agreed with Parliament, the CMA should perhaps have mentioned that fact in some of its press coverage.
	Sadly, the example I have given is one of many hundreds of thousands that routinely happen every day. It is only through measures such as the Lords amendment that we can hope to tackle the worst excesses of the industry and put the genuine fans first.
	Let me be clear that the argument and the fight have never been about stopping the resale of tickets. The legitimate resale of tickets is not the problem and those who have claimed that clamping down on ticket touts and increasing transparency will harm true fans know very little about the problems and even less about what needs to be done to address them. Greater transparency is never a problem for a market operating properly and it is only in the interests of illegal ticket touts to sit back and do nothing to change the law. Others say that this is a licence for event organisers to cancel tickets, but the amendment clearly sets out that event organisers cannot cancel tickets simply because they have been resold, and can do so only in very specific circumstances. I am glad that that safeguard is in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has tabled a characteristically unhelpful amendment that would insert a sunset clause for the provision—an act that is as misguided as it is obstructive. I know that the Opposition will vote against it and I am sure that the Government will too, as it is our intention to work on behalf of the fans and not the touts. Any further debate on that point gives it merit that it simply does not deserve.
	Before I consider the specifics of the amendments proposed in the other place, let me praise Lord Moynihan for his diligent cross-party work and for succeeding in achieving such an important step towards strengthening the regulations in the sector. As a former Sports Minister, he knew first hand how pernicious the practice is. It has been an extremely productive experience working with him, as it has been with many other colleagues in both Houses who care just as passionately about the rights of fans as he, the hon. Member for Hove as my co-chair on the all-party group, the members of the all-party group and I do. I know that Lord Moynihan worked tirelessly over the last recess to secure a compromise with Ministers across two Departments—a feat few could accomplish—and event goers and fans across the country owe him a debt of gratitude for the amendment.
	As has been said, the amendment will do three key things to help stop the exploitation of fans. First, it will boost transparency, as from the time the Bill is enacted, ticket resellers will have to provide a seat number, any restrictions or limits on the ticket and the original face value of the ticket to all those they hope to sell it to. That will give fans far more knowledge about what they are buying and will give event managers more information about the tickets that are being resold.
	Secondly, the amendment will place a duty on ticket resellers to report criminal activity if they suspect it, making the enforcement of the law much more proactive
	and effective and discouraging the secondary market platforms from turning a blind eye and letting the worst excesses of these practices continue.
	Finally and crucially, the amendment compels the Secretary of State to review measures relating to the industry in a report to Parliament after 12 months, and that is what I would like to use the remaining time to speak about. The improvements in the amendment are a crucial first step, but they do not solve all the problems we can see in the sector. The review process will be absolutely vital in taking representations from the industry and making proposals that can build on the legislation and get to the heart of what is wrong with how things operate.
	There is much that needs to be considered in the review, but I shall limit myself to a couple of key points that must be investigated if we are ever properly to understand why the problem is so persistent and deep-rooted. The first is the speed at which secondary ticketing sites get access to tickets in the first place. Secondary ticketing platforms can have hundreds if not thousands of tickets on their sites and ready to be sold within minutes of their first going on general release and in some cases even before they have gone on sale. How can that happen without sophisticated software, such as bots, harvesting them, without certain so-called power sellers working alongside the platforms to get tickets on their behalf or without inside trading, such as behind-the-scenes deals in which premium tickets are not sold on the primary market but given straight to the secondary market to be sold at huge mark-ups?

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some circumstances those people never have tickets in the first place but are chancing their arm to see whether they could get inflated prices?

Sharon Hodgson: I agree. Sometimes they are following through on a fraudulent transaction and sometimes the listing is speculative, as they might try to get a ticket later and want to see how much they can sell it for.
	Given that there is no lawful way to harvest large numbers of tickets and that behind-the-scenes deals are at best duplicitous and immoral, we must ask just how the situation can take place and continue. Further to that point, if the tickets showing on the system have not been acquired, how can the sellers guarantee their sale on their sites? An investigation of those guarantees must be central to the review, because if that approach is found to be misleading, it would directly go against consumer rights, which are of course the entire purpose of the Bill. One way the all-party group on ticket abuse thought of to solve that would be to publish the seller’s identity when reselling tickets. I am sure that that will also be considered in the review.
	The duty under the new amendment to report criminal activity is welcome, but we must also ask why past instances of criminality have been so largely unreported in the sector, even when the secondary platforms have been the victims and have had to pay out large sums in compensation. Has that been seen simply as collateral damage? It cannot be a continued coincidence and questions must be asked in the review.
	In conclusion, the review is crucial and much needed and will have to be handled carefully and expertly so that we understand how best further to protect the public. That is why the choice of chair is so important. The marketplace is so complicated that it will need somebody who understands it but who is fair minded enough to listen and engage with all parties while keeping the rights of the fans at the heart of the entire process. If I may be so bold as to venture a suggestion, I think that my all-party group co-chair, the hon. Member for Hove, would be an ideal candidate to take up the challenge after he leaves Parliament. I do not know what his plans are—he might be hoping to travel the world and have a normal life for a while—but I can think of no one better. Whoever is chosen, however, I am confident that they will ensure that the right questions are asked, the right leads are pursued and the right outcome is achieved so that at last we can be sure that the market will put fans first.

Mike Weatherley: It is an honour to follow my co-chair on the all-party group, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). The amendment is the culmination of four years of hard campaigning and it is a little ironic that we have only about two minutes to squeeze in all our comments. I will not go through all the points that have been made so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, as there is no point in doing so, other than to say that the bots have made the free market untenable and something needs to change.
	I want to make two particular points. The first is about the review, which is crucial. I thought at first that that would be like kicking the issue into the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, but it is an essential part of the reforms. The critics of the reforms are screaming about the potential problems, as we have heard, whereas those who want more action are screaming that more should be done. That is a lot of shouting, but time will tell and the review, which will report in a relatively short period of time in parliamentary terms, will closely consider both claims and at last come up with a proper analysis and recommendations.
	The legislation specifically states that terms and conditions need to be fair, and making sure that they are fair must be part of the review. The terms and conditions that event organisers attach to tickets are there to protect fans—not to take advantage of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley indicated they might be. Where fans have bought tickets for genuine use, and have a genuine reason for resale—that is, where they have bought tickets not just to make a profit—I am fully behind their ability to resell. I will make sure that that is a fundamental principle in the review. Equally, I will make sure that the insertion of “fair terms” in the amendment is not the secondary ticketing industry’s way of undermining all these changes to the law. I am pleased that groups such as the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Rugby Football Union are fully behind the amendments.
	As with all compromises, neither side is fully happy with the solution, but on balance, this is a good step in the right direction. The review will be key. With this review, the UK, with its rich cultural heritage and world-leading position, will once again be the focus of
	world attention. I suspect that the review will act as a blueprint for many countries around the world—both those that have enacted secondary ticketing legislation, and those considering doing so.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman has put so much effort into ensuring that we got to this point today. Will he, with his experience of the industry, say what he would like the conclusions of the review to look like? What questions should be asked to make sure that the secondary ticketing market works best for both consumers and businesses?

Mike Weatherley: I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. The review must be balanced. Obviously, I am pushing for more regulation, because I feel that the free market has fallen down, but we should consider experiences around the world. There are states in America that have repealed secondary ticketing laws, and we need to look at why. Was it because the legislation was badly drafted? Norway and Denmark have laws under which tickets cannot be sold above face value, but they have never been enacted. Is that because, as someone mentioned, trading standards teams do not have enough teeth to implement such measures? All of that needs to be in the review; that is absolutely essential. There are so many aspects to the review that it will be quite an exciting one.
	To summarise, and to misquote E.M. Forster on democracy, two cheers for the amendment, but not quite three. However, I am really pleased that we will enact this law before the end of this Parliament, and before I step down. This is very much a good step forward.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) on their tireless work on this issue. They should be pleased with the outcome that they have managed to achieve. I want to address two points that came up in the debate. The first was the question, “Why now?”, and the second was about the CMA.
	On the question of why now, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) seemed to suggest that we had voted for something and will now be voting against it, or some such thing. The amendments that we are considering differ in two respects from the ones that we considered in January. First, on privacy, the amendments in January stipulated that the name of those selling tickets would have to be a piece of information that was made transparent. We thought that there were privacy concerns about that. Secondly, there were concerns about compliance with EU law—the technical standards directive—and that could unfortunately have rendered all the provisions unenforceable. That was because of the de facto price cap in the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. For those reasons, although we understood the concerns brought forward, we could not accept the amendments in January. Of course, those concerns have now been addressed; that is why we are able to accept the Lords amendments today.
	Last week’s announcement by the CMA has been mentioned. The CMA in no way sought to usurp the work done in this House. It had done a long-running piece of enforcement work against four sites. The announcement covered the transparency elements of amendment 12J, but the amendment puts things on a statutory footing and should be very welcome.
	The CMA does, of course, have significant power. To address the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, it would be able to stop an organiser cancelling tickets. The CMA has shown that it is willing to act in this market should there be any concern that tickets were being cancelled, and I am sure that it would be happy to do so in future. On the international point, as the provisions apply to marketplaces and sellers targeting the UK, enforcement action can take place elsewhere. Indeed, the CMA recently pursued successful enforcement action against several websites, including viagogo, which is of course based in Switzerland. That shows that we have the enforcement to back up these consumer protections, which are proportionate, and which do not give rise to the privacy concerns that we had before. They will help to make sure that the secondary market can genuinely thrive and work better for consumers.

Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12J.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 353, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 12J agreed to.
	More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the Deputy Speaker put the remaining question to be decided at that hour.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 12M and 12S.

Commission Work Programme 2015

[Relevant documents: Thirty-first report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC219-xxx, Chapter1]

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Sir William Cash.

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5080/15 and Addenda 1 to 4, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2015–A New Start; and supports the Government’s view that the most significant initiatives are those that focus on the strategic priorities set out by the European Council in June 2014 to promote jobs, growth and investment in the EU.
	This is the fourth such debate in which I have taken part as Minister for Europe, but I think it is the first time I can say that the European Commission has sent a strong message that it intends to do things in a different fashion from how its work has been carried out in the past. The clear message from President Juncker and his team is that they want to focus on a smaller number of key priorities and that they wish to set limits on the degree to which the Commission, and the EU collectively, can interfere in matters that are often better handled at national or local level.
	Of course, the test of that message will be what happens in practice; it is actions that will count, not words. However, I am encouraged by the creation of the powerful post of First Vice-President of the Commission, which gives Frans Timmermans, the former Dutch Foreign Minister, an overarching power to veto any proposals that do not meet the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. He is already making it clear that a key element of his responsibility is to say a firm no to fellow commissioners, to the European Parliament and to outside lobbyists and to focus only on those matters where the Commission judges that European action would genuinely give Europe added value that could not be achieved by other means.

William Cash: I have spoken with Mr Timmermans a number of times in COSAC meetings with the chairmen of the 28 member states. On the question of national Parliaments, which is the key question in relation to subsidiarity—it is the question of what should be done best at the appropriate level—is not it the case that, for all the words about involving national Parliaments, we will not get much change out of Mr Timmermans, any of the Commissioners or the European institutions if we insist on national Parliaments at the expense of the European Parliament?

David Lidington: I do not want to pre-empt tomorrow’s debate on the European Union’s relations with national Parliaments and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. My hon. Friend is right to identify this as a challenging agenda and to indicate that the European Parliament, in particular, is likely to be resistant to the idea of a stronger voice for national Parliaments, but I think that he is too pessimistic in his assessment of Frans Timmermans. After all, it was during Mr Timmermans’s tenure as Foreign Minister of the Netherlands that the
	Dutch came forward with a number of specific proposals for strengthening the role of national Parliaments in holding EU decisions to account. I take heart from the fact that we have in this powerful role within the Commission somebody who has previously gone on the record to say that the guiding principle should be, “Europe where necessary, but national where possible”, and who has been very sympathetic to ideas for strengthening the role of national Parliaments.
	The Commission has set out a clear intention to be more strategic and to act in a smaller number of areas where there is real added value for the EU. It has also said that it wants to demonstrate a particularly strong focus on jobs, growth and European competitiveness, which are objectives that the Government strongly support. The Commission has pledged to create a closer partnership with member state Governments and national Parliaments. We can see some evidence of the Commission’s approach by looking at some of the numbers in the work programme. The work programme includes just 23 legislative and non-legislative policy initiatives and—importantly— 80 measures proposed for either withdrawal or modification.

John Redwood: Does the Minister not note that most of the measures being withdrawn either are obsolete, having been superseded by a measure that has already gone through, or are being withdrawn in favour of a more ambitious proposal? It is complete nonsense to say that the Commission is giving up power and wishes to do less. This is a massive work programme and the 80 measures are just a con trick.

David Lidington: I think that my right hon. Friend is being too pessimistic. As I said earlier, the test will be whether at the end of five years we can look back and say that the Commission has delivered in practice what its words indicated at the start of its tenure. I completely accept that there is a real problem with the Commission’s working culture, which, to be fair, like many national Government Departments, tends to judge success by the output of new law and new regulation, rather than the quality of what is actually done on a number of core priorities.
	I was pleased to note that the Commission confirmed this weekend that 73 of the measures proposed for withdrawal have now been formally withdrawn. By comparison, the 2014 work programme proposed 29 new initiatives and prioritised a further 26 measures for adoption, and in 2010 there were some 300 new measures proposed. This work programme is focused on fewer measures, and on measures that will encourage growth and jobs, deepen the single market, conclude trade agreements and improve regulation, freeing up business from unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Government welcome that new focus.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend. Of the 73 proposals being withdrawn, 71 are either obsolete or have already been blocked by the Council. Of the 79 actions being withdrawn under REFIT, 58 are evaluations or studies, five are proposals to codify, two are proposals to simplify, one is a proposal for a simplified framework and two are proposals for an update or a review. There is only one that would reduce something, against 452 Commission
	proposals, less the 73 that are sitting on the table. He tells us that this is a great success for Europe. What would be failure?

David Lidington: Failure would be Europe failing to give priority to job creation, economic growth and competitiveness at a time when a horrifying number of people, particularly young people, are out of work in this continent and when European competitiveness is not only slipping behind that of the United States, but is at risk because of the global shift of economic power to Asia and Latin America. The answer to those economic challenges lies in Europe raising its game dramatically as far as competitiveness is concerned.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most warmly on lasting the whole Parliament as Minister for Europe, which must be a first. I understand that he and the Government received this Commission work programme some time ago, so why has it take so long to get it to the Floor of the House? I might be wrong about that, so will he clarify when the Government first received it?

David Lidington: I can check the precise date and let the right hon. Gentleman know. There has been a delay, which I regret, because it has taken time to get collective agreement on this and on a number of other debates that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred. Originally, we considered having this debate in Committee, but, having discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House after he had given evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Government decided to have a debate on the Floor of the House. I am just glad that we are having this debate relatively early in 2015.

William Cash: I suspect that that is an invitation so say that the amendment that I and many other members of my Committee have tabled, which I hope the Minister will accept, deals with free movement—a massive issue that affects immigration. The fact that it has been not merely delayed, but stalled for more than a year must have been a coalition decision, but we have not been told who was behind it, so who was it?

David Lidington: As I told my hon. Friend when I last gave evidence to his Committee, the Government take decisions collectively and it would not be right for me to go into detail about internal Government communications. I will come to the issues raised by the amendment shortly, but first I want to say more about the importance of the proposed work on economic affairs and competitiveness.
	The United Kingdom has long argued for ambitious trade deals. The ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and EU-Japan negotiations could benefit this country annually by more than £15 billion, so the comprehensive stocktake of trade policy proposed by the Commission is welcome.
	The EU’s greatest achievement—the single market—is still very far from complete, so we are pleased that the Commission plans to push liberalisation in sectors that could boost GDP the most, such as construction and professional services. We want EU legislation to enable the dynamic development of the future economy by
	supporting and not hindering a continent-wide digital single market. If that is done right, in a way that encourages the growth of online trade—both retail and business to business—it could generate €250 billion over the lifetime of this Commission.
	We also support the Commission’s vision of a well-regulated and integrated capital markets union of all 28 member states that maximises the benefits of capital markets and non-bank financing for the real economy. Lord Hill’s recent Green Paper on the subject spelled out the approach he plans to take, and the Government will, of course, engage with his team as the policy is developed further.
	We welcome the fact that the Commission intends to consider a range of approaches, and not just legislation, to develop Europe’s capital markets, and that much of that will be delivered through member state and industry action, rather than through EU-level law or regulation.

John Redwood: Will the Minister comment on the investment programme, which is said to be significant? How much of it is a spending commitment by the European institutions from their levies on member states, and how much will be done by gearing and leverage through guarantees and loans?

David Lidington: If I get the chance, I will give my right hon. Friend the exact figures at the end of the debate, but only a relatively small amount of the European fund for strategic investments—the so-called Juncker package—is derived from reallocating parts of the existing EU budget. The majority of the proposed €315 billion for the EFSI relies very much on private sector input on the basis of gearing.
	Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that when I visited the European Investment Bank recently to discuss its approach to the programme, it was very firm in saying that it took very seriously its responsibility to its shareholders—the member states—and that it would exercise its responsibilities as a bank, that there would be due diligence, that it was not prepared simply to wave projects through on the basis that any sector or country deserved a particular slice, and that it would look at the real economic benefit that each proposal for capital investment offered to Europe as well as to the member state.
	One of the sectors that we think could benefit from the EFSI is energy, where there is a need for work on interconnectors that would not only make more possible a genuine single internal market in European energy, but meet the strategic objective of trying to reduce European energy dependence on Russia. We think that the Commission communication on energy union is an important step towards not only strengthening Europe’s energy security, but decarbonising our economies and deepening the internal energy market.

Christopher Chope: On trying to reduce dependency on Russia, how does President Juncker’s recent proposal for a European army to stop President Putin in his tracks fit into the work programme?

David Lidington: In fairness to President Juncker, with whom I do not agree on that point, it is not a secret that he has held that view for a long time and I suspect it is
	held by pretty much every leading politician in Luxembourg.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	That is the reality. A small European country would see an obvious benefit to its national interest from that sort of greater European action. The British Government do not share the view that a European army would be helpful or necessary. We believe that NATO is and should remain the centrepiece of our collective defence and security arrangements.
	Were there to be any move towards establishing greater European military integration, it would first require consensus among member states, because such matters cannot be determined by a qualified majority vote under the treaty. Moreover, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recall, in passing the European Union Act 2011, this House required that there would have to be both an Act of Parliament and a referendum of the British people before any British Prime Minister could give consent to a proposal for the establishment of an EU army or armed forces in some hypothetical future.

William Cash: Of course, if we were no longer members of the European Union by that time, we would not need to give consent because we would not be in the position to do so.

David Lidington: We can argue about all sorts of improbable hypotheticals, but the key point is that, while President Juncker was expressing a view that he has made no secret of holding in the past, this is not a live issue for debate around the table in Brussels at the moment. In fact, both President Juncker and others who have spoken in support of a European army or defence force have said that they see it as being a very long-term objective.
	Turning to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and a number of other members of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Government recognise public concerns about immigration from other member states and the need for the Commission to do much more to address the abuse of free movement rights and the problems to which it gives rise. That is why this Government have gone further than any previous Administration to try to tackle the problems associated with free movement both domestically and at the European level.
	We have acted domestically to tackle abuse and ensure that the rules governing access to our welfare system and public services are as robust as possible. Only today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has laid regulations in Parliament to ensure that EU jobseekers have no access whatsoever to universal credit.
	At European level, we secured language in last June’s European Council conclusions on the need for the Commission to support member states in combating the misuse of free movement. We continue to work both with member states and the Commission to reform EU social security co-ordination rules so that they better reflect current migration patterns and the divergent, diverse nature of member states’ welfare systems, while ensuring that member states can maintain effective control of their own welfare systems. Welfare provision is of course set down in the treaty as belonging to the competence of member states, rather than that of European institutions.
	We welcome the proposal in the work programme on the labour mobility package—it covers several such items—which will assist us in carrying forward our ideas. However, we are very clear that there is much
	more to do, as my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his speech on 28 November. I therefore have no problem in welcoming the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which will be agreed to at the end of the debate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I commend my right hon. Friend’s wisdom in accepting the well thought through amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). In relation to the debate on free movement, will Her Majesty’s Government reconsider their stance on Switzerland? If we are serious about renegotiation, it seems to me that we must take a sympathetic view of its effort to get out of the principle of free movement. If that is one of the four fundamental principles applied to Switzerland, which is not even a member state, how can we have a thorough renegotiation?

David Lidington: The challenge the Swiss Government face is that they have entered into a series of bilateral agreements with the European Union linking a number of different elements together. For example, in the Swiss bilateral treaties with the EU, access to some of the EU’s single market provisions is explicitly linked to accepting the principle of freedom of movement. At the moment, it is written into that package of bilateral treaties that if one is revoked or renounced, all of the agreements will fall by a certain deadline. That is the challenge the Swiss Government face following the referendum early last year. We remain in close touch with Switzerland, a friendly country, and we hope that we can find a satisfactory way forward.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

David Lidington: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am conscious that the debate is time limited, and I want to let other Members speak.
	Before I conclude, I want to refer to the question of regulation. During his hearing in the European Parliament, Vice-President Timmermans pledged to conduct a review of pending legislation, which was completed in late 2014; to launch a revised inter-institutional agreement on better law-making in spring 2015; and to conduct a review of better regulation by October 2015.
	We are continuing to work with other member states to implement the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s business taskforce on EU regulation—the introduction of EU burden reduction targets, even greater use of lighter regimes and exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-enterprises, and greater independence and powers for the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board.
	Thirteen of the 30 recommendations of the Prime Minister’s taskforce have been fully implemented at European level, and progress is being made on others. The Commission has set out its intention to review, recast, merge or replace some 79 EU Acts as part of its Refit programme. We have long pushed for EU legislation to minimise unnecessary costs to business, particularly SMEs, and it is positive to see that reflected in the work programme and what appears to be a reinvigorated approach by the Commission to better regulation.
	Overall, the work programme shows encouraging signs that the Commission wishes to take the EU in what we consider to be the right direction, at least on
	the economic priorities. It is important to judge the Commission by what it now does in practice. In our view that means implementing the work programme in a way that respects the principle of “Europe where necessary, but national wherever possible”, reduces the burden of European regulation on business and eliminates barriers to growth, and supports increased competitiveness, trade and the completion of the single market. If that is the outcome, it will demonstrate important progress in the Government’s EU reform agenda.
	During the past five years, we have already secured the first ever reduction of the EU’s budget; significant reform of the common fisheries policy, including a ban on discards; the launch of talks on an ambitious transatlantic trade deal; and important protections for non-eurozone countries in respect of banking union. Just five years ago, it would have been unthinkable for the first work programme of a new Commission, which would want to demonstrate its ambition, to contain just 23 priority initiatives. That is evidence that this country’s messages are being heard and acted on.
	We launched this debate, and today there is growing consensus across Europe in favour of reform. We will continue to work energetically to ensure that the EU becomes more competitive and democratically accountable, deepens the single market to enable free movement of services and capital, and tackles abuse of the principle of free movement. I commend the motion to the House.

Pat McFadden: This is the first of two debates on the European Union over a couple of days—a double-header, as it were. It is a bit like Davis cup tennis, the only difference being that those involved are playing exciting, edge-of-the-seat tennis, and we are discussing the work programme of the European Commission.
	As the Minister was speaking, I was struck, as I have been before, by how often such debates are taking place inside the Conservative party rather than more widely. It seems to me that the debate inside the Conservative party has governed much of our positioning in recent years, but not to our national advantage.

William Cash: Is the right hon. Gentleman effectively saying to UKIP in his constituency that he does not regard the free movement of people and immigration as of any interest to his constituents?

Pat McFadden: I do not believe that that is what I said. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because I thought that the issue for him was principally parliamentary sovereignty, rather than the free movement of people. Perhaps he has shifted his position, and I should stand corrected.
	The Minister outlined the position on the numbers in the measures. I noted the scepticism with which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) greeted the numbers. I do not propose to go over that ground as the Minister has done so, but on the face of it the Commission is proposing a narrower, more focused programme—under 10 headings and 23 specific measures —than it has in the past.
	At the top of the Commission’s agenda is something we would all welcome—an emphasis on growth and jobs. In a continent still struggling to recover from the
	financial crisis, it is right to have such an emphasis and focus on the very high level of youth unemployment, on doing what is right on the big issues, and on less interference in and over-regulation of issues that do not need it.
	In his speech in London last week, Mr Timmermans, the vice-president of the Commission, said:
	“It is incredibly important that we follow through on limiting the initiatives we take to those areas where EU action is urgent and needed. For too long we worked on the premise of doing things because they were nice to do; I want to work on the premise that we do it because we need to do it, because Member States can’t do it by themselves alone. There needs to be added value of acting on a European scale.”
	I very much welcome that emphasis from Commissioner Timmermans, and I hope that it is followed through in reality as well as in the written plan.

John Redwood: As the right hon. Gentleman is such a fan of all this interference, will he say which of the 23 measures will actually reduce the shocking levels of youth unemployment, which are the curse of Europe thanks to the idiotic policies of this Union?

Pat McFadden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for painting me as a fan of all the measures before I have even spoken about them. One measure that could help to create jobs would be a properly negotiated free trade agreement between the EU and the United States. That has the potential to help our exporters and create jobs.

Kelvin Hopkins: I gently say to my right hon. Friend that there is a range of views in our party, as well as in the Conservative party, but I shall not dwell on that.
	I heard Mr Timmermans speaking in Rome fairly recently, and to hear him one would have thought there were no problems at all. He was speaking in Italy, where unemployment is at horrendous levels—not as horrendous as in Spain or Greece, but still horrendous. He said that countries could not act on their own. The reason they cannot act on their own is that they are cemented into the euro and have no control over their exchange rates or interest rates. If they had control over macro-economic policy, they might be able to act on their own, but they cannot do so at the moment.

Pat McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Certainly in the speech that I heard last Thursday, the commissioner was not saying that there were no problems at all. He acknowledged many of the problems and said that he was determined to take a different approach in responding to them from that taken in the past. It is perfectly fair for Members to say, “We’ll see how that works out. Let’s see if he’s serious about what he says.” However, that certainly is what he says, and that is reflected in the work programme.
	There has been legitimate frustration about over-regulation in the past. If the Commission is serious about weeding out proposals that are not going to go anywhere, that have been lying on the table for years without prospect of agreement or that have been bypassed
	by events, we should welcome that. I welcome the emphasis on growth and jobs and on regulation in the work programme.
	The other measure on growth and jobs, to which the Minister referred, is the Juncker package of investment. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, it is a combination of real new money and the encouragement of private sector investment and loan guarantees. If the Minister has a chance to respond to the debate, will he say what bids this Government have made for any proportion of that money? What investment projects have been brought forward and where are they in the country?
	Specifically, will the Minister say how that proposal is to be organised in England? There has been concern among local authorities and local enterprise partnerships that they are not permitted to put in bids and that they all have to go through Whitehall. In an environment in which we are discussing devolution to various parts of the country, it is important that areas in England get a fair crack of the whip in terms of submitting bids to this fund for their projects. I hope he will say something about that.
	The Minister said that the work of the UK’s commissioner, Lord Hill, on the capital markets union was important. It has long been said that SMEs are too reliant on bank finance and that we need to encourage more forms of finance. What input can this country, with its expertise in financial services, have in those proposals and in the development of the capital markets union, not only from a Government point of view but from a private sector industry point of view? Nowhere in Europe is better placed than the UK to contribute to ideas on financial innovation and financial services.
	Of course, some of the work programme does not apply to us. There are measures that apply only to the eurozone. It is important that countries outside the eurozone, such as the UK, continue to play a full part in the EU.
	If the Minister responds to the debate, will he update the House on progress on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? In the question and answer session that followed Commissioner Timmermans’ speech last week, he was asked about TTIP. He said that if it was to be done, it would have to be done by the end of this year. He did not spell this out explicitly, but I think he meant that after that, the timetable of the American presidential election would make it more difficult to negotiate an agreement. Is it the Government’s view that if TTIP is to be done, it has to be done this year? If it is, what input are we having to ensure that that happens, provided that the important concerns about public services and investor-state dispute settlement procedures are worked through and considered properly?
	This debate about the work programme reminds us of the way in which we debate these things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked when the Government received the programme. It always strikes me that we debate these things after they have been adopted. Parliament’s method of scrutinising European affairs is not the subject for tonight, but this debate reminds me that these things can be overtaken by events.
	There is reference in the work programme to security issues. Like the Minister, I do not agree with Mr Juncker’s suggestion for a European army. However, I do believe
	that the issue of security is becoming more, not less, relevant, to our European relations. One need only look at the situation in Ukraine. Since the work programme was published, we have had the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, which were a terrible reminder of the common threat we face from extremism. It is therefore important when debating the programme to realise that whatever was written last year has to keep up with the changing nature of events. When he sums up, will the Minister say a few words about what action is being taken on collective security, not of the kind that Mr Juncker referred to with the European army, but in terms of sanctions against the aggression that we have seen in Ukraine?
	The work programme refers to migration—that is, migration from outwith the European Union into the European Union. Last week, I met Ministers in Rome. This Minister will be aware that migration is an issue of huge concern for the Government of Italy, given the steady flow of boats from the desperate situation in Libya. The Italian Government feel, with some justification, that they are dealing with a situation that affects all of Europe. We have seen the end of the Mare Nostrum programme and the adoption of the Triton programme. That does not resolve the intense humanitarian crisis nor the political problem in Libya, where there is no Government of any coherence.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about illegal migration. Obviously, one of the priorities in the Commission’s programme is migration. Some 3,200 people died in the Mediterranean last year, but a quarter of a million people crossed from north Africa into the EU, so this is a serious issue. Getting a common policy to stop the people traffickers exploiting migrants ought to be at the top of the EU’s agenda.

Pat McFadden: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The Italian Foreign Minister told me that of the estimated 270,000 illegal migrants who landed in the EU last year, 170,000 landed in Italy. This cannot be a problem for just one member state, because it is broader than that. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on our Government’s input in dealing with both the consequences and causes of this problem.
	Concerns have been raised about what is not in the programme. The Minister wrote to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee about the air quality package and the circular economy package. Concerns about that have been raised by Members of the European Parliament as well. A number of Select Committee Chairs have written to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on the matter. It is therefore clear that there is a lot in the work programme that will concern the House.
	Before I end, I want to turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his colleagues on the European Scrutiny Committee. It asks that the Government ask the Commission to develop policies relating to the free movement of citizens. That is something that the Labour party has put forward, and before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) produced proposals that related to how free movement interacts with access to benefits and public goods. We would like the Commission to work with member states on that, because access to
	benefits and public goods is not an issue just for the UK but for other member states. We saw that in the recent European Court judgment on the Dano case, which was initiated in Germany and affected a lady who it was judged did not have the right to access social security benefits. We have an interplay between a founding principle of the European Union and social security systems that are national in nature, and it is right that we discuss work in that area with the Commission.

John Redwood: When the right hon. Gentleman said that Italy should not be expected to handle the problem of migrants to Italy on its own, is he recommending burden sharing? Is he saying that other member states should take a share of those migrants through a common policy?

Pat McFadden: It has already been agreed that Triton will be a European programme and not just an Italian one—the right hon. Gentleman is a little behind the pace if he thinks that is a new departure, because it has already been agreed. The question is about the resources given to the programme and whether it is capable of meeting the task it faces. I remind him of the terrible figure given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East of the number of people who have drowned in the Mediterranean over the past couple of years.

John Redwood: rose—

Pat McFadden: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
	In conclusion, I believe that this work programme is a step forward from previous ones. It is closer to British priorities and reflects much of what we want to see, although we do not endorse everything in it and some of it does not apply to us. Like all such programmes, it is only a plan on paper and it will remain to be seen whether the Commission delivers as it has promised. It is certainly urgent that it does deliver to meet real and urgent priorities, and ensure that the European Union works in the interests of its citizens over the next five years. Whatever the plan says on paper, that is ultimately how it will be judged.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment (a), at end add
	‘; and urges the Government to encourage the Commission to develop policies during 2015 relating to the free movement of EU citizens.’
	It is truly shocking that it took more than a year for the Government to bring forward a debate on the free movement of EU citizens, given that the document in question was recommended as long ago as January 2014 regarding a matter of enormous significance that was discussed on 5 December 2013 in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. This issue goes right to the heart of the immigration question, which in turn lies at the heart of the European question as it applies to the United Kingdom, and it is a matter of intense political and controversial debate. It is inconceivable that this matter should have been so shockingly delayed, and that led the European Scrutiny Committee to ask the Leader of the House to give evidence and be cross-examined on why these important matters, including free movement
	as well as things such as the EU budget and the charter of fundamental rights, are outstanding. We were told by the Minister and the Leader of the House that they could not disclose how that decision had been arrived at because it was a matter of collective Government responsibility. The Committee is glad that by tabling the amendment it has forced the Minister to welcome it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder if I might add to what my hon. Friend is saying. Although the Minister and the Leader of the House said that they could not possibly tell us who was blocking the provision, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the First Secretary of State and the Minister for Europe all intimated that they were very much in favour of having the debate, and wished that it could be brought forward as a matter of urgency although forces beyond their control prevented it.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is right in every respect and we have all the transcripts to prove it, including from various Secretaries of State. It is effectively an example of decisions being taken behind closed doors in smoke-free rooms. Those are the new modernising methods of government. I disapprove of them and so does my Committee, as shown by the fact that we tabled this amendment.
	Let us move on and accept that we are now able to debate free movement; I particularly want to concentrate on EU migration and benefits in that context. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on 18 November, which was 10 days before he made his speech at JCB in Staffordshire on the question of free movement, and I drew attention to the fact that I believed we were faced with a real problem. However much we might want to make certain changes, unless we were prepared to dig in and make this Parliament supreme on matters of such vital national interest, we would not get the necessary changes because some of them required treaty change and others required overriding the charter of fundamental rights. Although the Prime Minister accepted in questions after his speech that some of those matters would require treaty change, in reality that is not on offer in any substantial way from the other member states.
	The principle of free movement is embedded in the ideology and principles of the other member states, and particularly the European institutions and European Commission, despite how that may affect us as a small island with a greatly increasing population and pressures on social housing and education—the list is endless. Unlike other member states such as France, Germany and Spain that have large land masses and can absorb many more people, we simply cannot do so. It is therefore a matter of vital national interest—quite apart from questions that I will mention in a moment about abuse of the system—that has led us to a position where we have desperately wanted to put our foot down. Some of us believe that we should override European legislation and the charter of fundamental rights by using the “notwithstanding” formula—that is notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, which is past legislation as I have said many times before—so that we can ensure that our Supreme Court obeys the laws of this Parliament which is elected by our voters in general elections.
	When the election comes—it is only a matter of 60 days or so—this issue will be at the centre of gravity in that election, and we will be asked whether we will take the necessary steps in line with what voters insist on. I am afraid the answer to that question is that there will be no treaty change or overriding of the charter, and when I have asked Ministers and the Prime Minister whether they will use the “notwithstanding” formula, I have been told no.

John Redwood: On the narrower point of benefits, the Minister gave us encouraging news that we have control of our benefits system, as that is a reserved matter under the treaties. Does my hon. Friend recollect that on several occasions Ministers have been unable to change our benefits system in the way the British public want because of European legal blockages?

William Cash: That is completely right. People think—in elements of the BBC and elsewhere, I suspect—that this is somehow a matter of policy, and that by using the right words one can change the effect of European law. No, we cannot. We have to pass legislation. There has to be a majority in this House to override European laws and regulations. It is, ultimately and tragically, a legal framework rather than just simply a question of policy based on the wishes of voters, as expressed by their representatives in Parliament. This has only fairly recently begun to gain traction with some people in the public arena, but not sufficiently, I am afraid, to achieve the kind of impartial analysis I believe is needed, for example in the BBC. Without going into this now, I have invited—in fact, I have effectively forced—the director-general and the editor-in-chief of the BBC to appear before my Committee to explain this problem in the kind of language that ordinary people can understand. That will take place on Wednesday afternoon at 2.30 pm, for those who want to take note.
	The Prime Minister’s speech had a lot in it, which demonstrated the extent to which he wants to try to resolve many of these questions. That is undeniable, but the question we have to address, and to which I now turn, is the extent to which it would require treaty change or otherwise—that is the acid test.
	My first general remark is that the package includes only one proposal that directly limits or imposes a quota on the number of EU migrants. This would relate to future accessions and so could be part of normal negotiations. However, to impose a direct limit on migration from existing member states would certainly require treaty change.
	My second general comment is that many of the relevant treaty obligations have already been interpreted in this context by the European Court of Justice. The Court plays a huge, vital and exceptional role, and cannot be appealed against. It has already interpreted these matters as providing limitation on the action that member states can take in this area. Indeed, the recent case of Dano, which is frequently referred to—the Foreign Secretary referred to it on “The Andrew Marr Show” only this weekend—demonstrates that the Court can change its approach.
	However, some of the judgments mentioned are long-standing, well-entrenched and engage charter rights. Any change along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister would therefore not be sufficiently strong, to
	the extent that they rely on the Court of Justice changing its established jurisprudence. That is why we want the Commission to take account of these points—these are the issues. The European Commission is the legal guardian of the treaties. The point I am making in this speech is that, in order to change the law to ensure that we can actually deal properly with the problems that come from free movement, we have to persuade the Commission, in its work programme, to take account of such relevant questions. It could be inferred from what the Prime Minister had to say that he accepted that some treaty change would be required—and in fact, when he was asked questions, he accepted that towards the end—but there are a number of real problems, and I will now turn to them.
	The first problem that the European Commission will have to consider in its work programme is a stronger power to refuse entry and to deport criminals. The free movement directive, which the European Commission has to enforce, requires decisions to be taken on a case-by-case basis on the grounds permissible by the treaty. That provision reflects Court of Justice jurisprudence extending across a wide range of treaty rights, including the freedom to travel to other member states to receive services, which is highly relevant to the work programme. It is likely that any significant stronger action will require treaty change, particularly if it detracts from the requirement derived from the principle of proportionality to look at each individual case.
	Secondly, I believe a ban on re-entry for those who have abused EU rights may be possible, as this falls within the public policy exception to the treaty right of free movement. However, there are again questions of proportionality.

Christopher Chope: Is this not all pie in the sky? There is no way in which the Commission or other member states will agree to these fundamental changes. Is that not why we need to go back to basics and have a free trade organisation without the free movement of people, just as we have free trade agreements with other countries without having to take in all their people as a right, without any control over them? Would it not be better to work towards, for example, visa waiver systems?

William Cash: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. In fact, if I may say so, I have said it many times in the past myself. However, we have to be able to identify the problems that have been presented by making assertions that we want this and we want that, in order to demonstrate the fact that it cannot be done before we move to the next step, which is of the kind that he and I would want: to address this on a realistic footing and to say to the European Commission, the European institutions and the Government that these proposals are simply not going to stack up because they are not going to happen. There is no chance of a treaty change as far as I can see—my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber obviously agree—that will result in getting rid of the dangers presented to the United Kingdom as a result of imagining we will be able to do things, when in practice we know perfectly well it is not going to happen because we will not get the treaty change.
	There is also the problem of access to tax credits, housing benefits and social housing for four years. The law of the Court of Justice indicates that an attempt to
	do this would be contrary to the treaty rights of free movement insofar as the limits on benefit extend to benefits for jobseekers linked to labour market participation and benefits to those who are classified as workers. Such persons are entitled to equal treatment as a treaty right. There is another problem. These things are not going to go away. My hon. Friend is completely right, as I have said so often, not to allow ourselves to be induced to believe that because we say something it will happen, particularly when we are dealing with the acquis communautaire and the rules and regulations that are imposed, which we voluntarily accepted in this House under the 1972 Act. We are the only country of the 28 member states that has the right, because of our constitutional arrangements—we do not have a written constitution—to make changes and override that legislation if we so wish to do. We can do it. The question is: have we got the political will in relation to matters of vital national interest?
	Any restriction on access to social housing would likely be regarded as discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Thus, that too would be contrary to the treaty. There is then the question of removal if jobseekers do not find a job in six months. The law of the European Court of Justice overrides even this Parliament, by our voluntary agreement, but we can unwind it if we wish to do so by using the notwithstanding formula to override it and pass a law in this place. If jobseekers do not find a job in six months and are faced with removal, we could legislate. Under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, however, Court of Justice law prevents it, on the grounds that it interferes with the treaty right of free movement—insofar as a jobseeker can demonstrate that he or she is continuing to seek work and has a genuine chance of being engaged. Thus—again—treaty change is likely to be necessary.
	Then there is the requirement for a job offer before entry—the same case law points to the requirement for treaty change on that account, too. Then there is the further restriction on the entry of non-EU family members. The rights of family members to enter with someone who has rights as an EU worker are set out explicitly in the free movement directive and could in principle be adjusted by amendment to the directive, but limits to wholesale change are set by the requirements not to undermine the essence of the treaty right of free movement and to respect human rights.
	As I mentioned in my lead letter in yesterday’s The Sunday Telegraph, there is also the problem of human rights issues in respect of the deportation of terrorists, who can also insist on the right to family life under the present arrangements. We have to get real about this. We have to change it. So far, the Court has taken a consistently firm approach in favour of ensuring family life where these matters arise in the context of free movement, and it is likely to continue to do so—with huge implications for the number of people who can enter.
	Finally, there is the question of whether there should be no child benefit for non-resident children. The requirement to pay child benefit for children in another member state is currently in the social security co-ordination regulations. It is theoretically possible to amend the regulations to end these payments, but it would raise the serious question of indirect discrimination on nationality grounds—again contrary to treaty free movement rights—
	and the same would apply to the proposal to limit child benefit paid abroad to that paid in the child’s country of residence.
	I do not mean to criticise for the sake of it. I have tried to present the House with a proper examination and legal analysis of the problems, which would not have been the case had we not been able to debate the amendment, and it is now on the record that these are serious problems that cannot simply be washed away with fine words and which in most cases will require treaty change. When I wrote to the Prime Minister 10 days before his speech, I asked if he would be good enough to seek the advice of the Attorney-General and Government lawyers on the questions I raised. I trust that the House, the Minister and the Prime Minister will listen, and that we will take the steps necessary to deal with the vexed issue of immigration in a manner that overrides the treaties and the charter, as and when it is in our vital national interest to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have four Back-Bench speakers and we need to finish at 10-past 8. In addition, I am sure the Minister would like a couple of minutes.

Keith Vaz: I will be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has always spoken with authority on European matters and whom I congratulate on his persistence in getting these issues debated in the House. We do not know quite how long the delay has been since the Commission decided to have its work programme—

David Lidington: The work programme was published on 17 December, the explanatory memorandum was laid before Parliament on 14 January, the European Scrutiny Committee referred it for debate on 28 January and we are debating it on 9 March. It is not as long a delay as there has, I am afraid, been with some others.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Minister. It might not seem long to him, but, picking up on a point made by the shadow Minister, it is good to have these matters debated in the House as quickly as possible. If Parliament is to have any influence on the Commission, it is good to have them before us as quickly as possible.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I support the right hon. Gentleman’s comments entirely. The Commission work programme is the equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, and it is inconceivable that the House would wait nearly three months before debating the Gracious Speech and then allow only 90 minutes to do so.

Keith Vaz: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is the time issue. Several right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak—even if they are the usual suspects—and to give these issues our proper attention, we need longer than 90 minutes. I know how much you enjoy these European debates, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	May I again congratulate the Minister for Europe on lasting five years? To get a five-year sentence under the criminal law, one has either to have been trading in firearms or to have been guilty of violent disorder. I do not know what he did right, but he is obviously the Prime Minister’s blue-eyed boy, because he has kept him tethered to the Dispatch Box as Minister for Europe. I would love to see how many stamps he has in his passport—but it is the EU so there will be no stamps. Anyway, well done to him for surviving so many of these debates.
	I want to concentrate on one aspect of the five headline points in the Commission programme—migration. The hon. Member for Stone talked about legal migration and the issues confronting the British electorate—issues that we need to discuss—but I want to concentrate on illegal migration. On a recent visit to Calais, the Home Affairs Committee accepted the point made by the Mayor of Calais that once illegal migrants get there, they can see the UK and it is therefore already too late. Even the fence, like that used to surround and separate G8 leaders from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), though robust, has been blown down twice. It is too late, once the illegal migrants get to Calais; this issue needs to be dealt with by the EU and the Commission at the point of departure from north Africa.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the Italians are bearing the brunt of this problem. More than 250,000 people travel cross the Mediterranean every year; 3,200 have died—those are the ones we know about; and the Mare Nostrum initiative has been stopped because Frontex simply cannot deal with the problem. It is not just Italy, though. In the past five years, the Committee has also visited the border between Greece and Turkey. We know what pressure the Greeks are under, because of their economic situation, and people are flooding into Turkey from Iraq and Syria, despite the efforts of the Turkish Government. Once they arrive in Greece, they are kept in detention for up to three to four months, before being released on the border between Greece and Turkey. They end up in Athens, but their destination of choice is the UK and western Europe.
	Illegal migration is the No. 1 issue facing the EU, and although it is recognised as such in the Commission’s programme, under the heading “Towards a New Policy on Migration”, actually we do not hear enough from the Commission and Ministers about this critical issue. It requires a new deal with the countries of north Africa, particularly in respect of how the Egyptians, Libyans, Algerians, and to a lesser extent the Moroccans and Tunisians, deal with the people traffickers, who take up to €10,000 each from each migrant on the boat and then leave them, sometimes without a captain, in the hope that the Italian Government will send ships to save them, which does not always happen. So although it is not necessarily on the conscience of people sitting in this House, it is certainly on the conscience of the Commission, if it has one.
	Dealing with illegal migration requires an EU approach; it is not just a matter for the United Kingdom. As I have said, once the migrants have reached Calais, it is far too late. I would be keen to know from the Minister today, and from his successor—unless the Minister’s party wins the election and the Prime Minister is persuaded
	that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do another five years—what is happening in the EU with illegal migration, because it is a huge problem that needs to be resolved.

Pat McFadden: Before the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee finishes, will he clarify his view on burden sharing? Does he really think that if these migrants land in Italy, they stay in Italy—or is not the reality that once they get there, they will try to travel to other countries?

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is not helped by the fact that the Italians, because they do not want to deal with this problem themselves, give people travel documents so that they can travel on their own to other parts of the EU. That is why we cannot simply leave it to Italy; we need to sort it out. I am not talking about burden sharing in the sense that we all say that we are going to take a similar number of people, because I am not sure that that is what the British people want. What it requires is a robust approach to a Mediterranean crisis—and it is a crisis and it does need to be resolved.

John Redwood: This debate is a disgrace. This is a massive work programme with huge implications for the British people and our own country, yet we have been given 90 minutes. I can now make only a few of the points I wanted to make because two of my colleagues rightly wish to join in.
	The Minister told us that he was delighted that this was a small and compressed programme of just 23 measures. These measures are huge for the jobs, growth and investment area. There are proposals that will have a direct impact on the economies of the European Union. In the section on economic and monetary union, two new taxes are proposed—a common consolidated corporation tax and a financial transactions tax. The Minister did not even mention them: I believe that they will be opposing them for the United Kingdom. One would have thought that a couple of major European taxes might have been worth a mention.
	Nobody has had a chance to discuss the energy union proposals, which will directly impact on the United Kingdom. It is put down as one measure, but it is a whole raft of measures. The one that is scored is a strategic framework, but the strategic framework will lead on to a massive programme of regulation and legislation. The Minister obliquely referred to the idea that we want to integrate the market. Why do we wish to integrate it? Why do we wish to integrate the United Kingdom’s rather different energy market—we are an island with access to a lot of its own energy—with the continent of Europe, which has a terrible geopolitical problem because it has made itself so dependent on Russian gas.
	As if that was not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) rightly said that migration and border controls—one of the leading issues in the run-up to the general election—is at the core of this work programme. That is exactly right.
	I found rather surprising the Minister’s remarks about our legal opportunities for benefit reform. It seems to me that most of the proposals for solving our difficulties on benefits for migrants in the United Kingdom would
	be illegal under the current treaty. I have been going on about this for years and have recommended to Ministers that they put our benefits on a contributory basis and that they should be paid only if people have paid in for a specified number of years and/or have been in full-time education in the United Kingdom between the ages of five and 16, so that all British people would qualify, without it being discriminatory on grounds of country. If we did that, we could make the changes we want, but Ministers do not respond. They pretend that they can make these other changes, but they have not delivered them all and I think they will discover that a lot of them are illegal.
	The economic programme should be much more urgent. I find it extraordinary that the Labour party can come here and show no anger or passion about the mass unemployment on the continent. If there were anything like 50% youth unemployment in Britain today or 25% general unemployment, Labour Members would be outraged and they would be here in their hundreds—not just three Members as now.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

John Redwood: I am sorry, but I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman wants to make his own speech.
	Labour would be outraged, but because this is happening on the continent of Europe and is the result of the euro and economic union policies from which we have rightly opted out, they do not seem to care less. They just accept that it has to happen. I think this House should be deeply angry about the mass unemployment on the continent and deeply angry about the permanent recession that has hurt certain countries. We should be deeply angry about the shambles that is the euro, which is doing so much damage to prosperity, opportunity and life hopes. We have no time to discuss any of that because we have been given only 90 minutes.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall curtail much of what I was going to say. I had a lot to say, and I greatly agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) about the crisis in the eurozone. I personally feel very angry as do many people in those countries. The so-called socialist party has disappeared in Greece to be replaced by Syriza, while Podemos is now in the lead in Spain. Working people are getting very angry about the appalling state of their economies and the impact on their people.
	Let me speak briefly about the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member. I support the amendment, and I am pleased that the Minister intends to accept it, although I hope this is not going to take the place of a proper full debate on free movement and some declaration of what Government policy will be on free movement and what they are going to do about it. It matters greatly to our constituents.
	I spent some six hours knocking on doors in my constituency on Saturday and Sunday, and the issue that cropped up the most was immigration and free movement. We cannot run away from it. We have to reach a position. If we want to say that free movement
	is fine and we are not going to do anything about it, then we should say that, although I think it will bring about a degree of anger from people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that this matter has not been taken seriously. He mentioned Frontex, which is an administrative and policy organisation; it does not have a border force.
	What we really need is a European border force to help out countries such as Greece—a relatively impoverished country, with a big land border with Turkey—and Italy, with its enormous sea border and islands close to the north African coast. If we are serious about the problem, those areas have to be helped by a border force that is European in scope. When we visited Frontex in Warsaw some two or three years ago, it could not say that free movement was a shibboleth that it could not talk about, but that is what it hinted at in its speech. I think we have to take these issues more seriously.
	As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, unemployment in some of the euro countries is quite appalling. If we had Spanish levels of unemployment in Britain, we would have 7.5 million unemployed instead of about 1.9 million. Ireland has overcome its unemployment problem by exporting 300,000 people. That is the pro rata equivalent of 4.5 million Britons leaving. Just imagine if we had 7.5 million unemployed and 4.5 million emigrating to find work. That is the situation that faces these European countries and no one should gloss over the fact that this is all the result of forcing a single currency on these countries, which then prove unable to adjust to it.
	After the crisis, we in Britain devalued and depreciated sterling by 27% against the euro and by 31% against the dollar. That was a major factor in helping us to avoid some of the extreme stresses that happened elsewhere. Even in Europe, we are seeing a country such as Switzerland pegging its currency to the euro for a little while, but when the peg was taken away, the currency appreciated by 30% overnight. There are great distortions in currency values right across Europe.
	Denmark has pegged its currency to the euro and it is taking desperate measures to try to hold its currency down. I do not call it the euro; I call it, privately, the deutschmark because that it what it really is. Other countries are effectively pegging their currencies to the deutschmark. Desperate steps have been taken to hold it down. We are in trouble now—the Government are right that this is a problem for Britain—because the euro is depreciating pretty rapidly against sterling, which will cause serious problems for our economy, too. All these problems are caused by the foolhardiness of imposing a single currency on different economies, which should be able to flex their currencies, choose their own interest rates and create demand in their own economies so that they can give jobs to their people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Let me begin by talking about the way in which we have arrived at this debate, and also about the amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and all the other members of the European Scrutiny Committee who were present
	at Wednesday’s meeting. It is highly unusual for a Select Committee to table a cross-party amendment on a subject that was recommended for debate nearly 14 months ago.
	The Government should bear it in mind that no Government are in office for ever. They should bear it in mind that the great protection of our liberties is the House’s entitlement to debate what it wishes to debate, and that they should treat that entitlement properly and respectfully by allowing such debates to take place. They should also bear it in mind that delaying deliberately, for 14 months, a debate on the free movement of people—a subject which, as we heard from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), is being discussed on every doorstep in the country—shows a contempt for the House of Commons that constitutes a grave error.
	When things change and another party is in government, that party too will notice that it is possible to ignore the Standing Orders of the House. That party too will notice that it is easy to clamp down on discussion in what ought to be a hotbed of democracy, and our freedoms will ebb away.
	The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for their delay, and the Ministers who claimed to be so much in favour of the debate when they appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee—or on the Floor of the House during questions to the Leader of the House—ought to recognise that they are powerful figures. When the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and the First Secretary of State all want a debate, it is extraordinary that we do not get that debate. Who is the mystery figure, hidden somewhere in the corridors of Whitehall, who vetoes debates?

William Cash: Clegg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is it our right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who vetoed the debate, or is it simply some mystery in the machine? Is it some faceless bureaucrat, some poor fellow sitting patiently in the officials’ Box?

Martin Horwood: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Or is it my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who now wishes to intervene?

Martin Horwood: It certainly is not the hon. Member for Cheltenham, or indeed, I suspect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). The purpose of my intervention, however, is to take a rare opportunity to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, think that debate on European matters in this place should not be subject to undue delay, and that European scrutiny that is scrunched into two short periods after a long delay is utterly inadequate when it comes to what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) rightly described as a European equivalent of the Queen’s Speech. We should take a fresh look at all this in the next Parliament. Nevertheless, I should like the hon. Gentleman to substantiate any other allegations that he makes about individual Members.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I was only speculating that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—my friend—was responsible. In fact, I think that that is unlikely; I think
	that the person in question is more deeply hidden in the machinery than such an easy target as the Deputy Prime Minister.
	This topic is of fundamental importance. According to press reports that have appeared over the past few days, 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given national insurance numbers in 2014 alone. In other words, more than 200,000 people from Romania and Bulgaria have been given national insurance numbers during the period in which we have been waiting for this debate. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. According to a report from Oxford university, the population has risen by 565,000 in three years, and two thirds of those people are from European Union countries. In London alone, the population of EU member state nationals has risen by 161,000, from 711,000 to 872,000, during those three years.
	The Government shy away from debates on this subject, thinking that if they do not talk about it, the nation will not notice; but the nation has noticed. I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is present. His entire party is making hay with the subject, because other politicians, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)—other major political figures—are shying away from it. They believe that if they keep quiet, no one will notice. However, this is an issue of great importance to our constituents, who are worried about the sheer number of people who are entering the country because of free movement.
	The Government are not setting out the groundwork for the renegotiation properly. At the December 2014 Council, they agreed to the following words, which appeared in the Council’s conclusions in relation to Switzerland:
	“It”
	—the Council—
	“considers that the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy, and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible.”
	That seems to me to be a pretty bold statement, especially in connection with what we have heard about the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration being sent to Mrs Merkel for approval before being delivered. It seems that our policy on immigration must have the stamp of approval from Berlin, but we must be so committed to the European ideal that we view the free movement of people as unchallengeable. If we think that in regard to Switzerland, how can we renegotiate ourselves?
	When I raised that question with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe earlier, he said that Switzerland had tied itself into a number of treaty arrangements, and that if it removed itself from one of them, it might find itself being removed from all of them. Surely that is exactly what we are trying to do in a renegotiation: surely we are trying to remove ourselves from some of the treaties to which we have agreed, but not from all of them. Perhaps the Government think that that is an equally disgraceful approach, but if it is sauce for the Swiss goose, surely it is sauce for the British gander. It cannot be right for the Government to take such a strong pro-European line in this regard. It shows a lack of sincerity in their approach to renegotiation—and if they renegotiate with a lack of sincerity, the British people are far more likely to vote to leave the EU, and the Government will get precisely the result that they do not want.
	Time is short, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have asked for the Minister for Europe to be given a couple of minutes in which to wind up the debate. It is illustrative of how little time we have been allowed that a debate on the equivalent of a much longer Queen’s Speech and the free movement of people has been so truncated because of the Government’s failure to deliver on their promises. However, I want to make one more comment, in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The financial transaction tax and the uniform corporation tax base represent a fundamental effort to take sovereignty from this country in fiscal matters, and patriate it to a European state. The fact that we have been given only 90 minutes in which to debate a matter of such importance is pretty poor according to the Government’s standard.

David Lidington: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker
	I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. Let me begin by dealing with the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) ended his speech, and which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The United Kingdom does not intend to participate in the two tax measures to which they referred, although we take an active role in discussions as those issues evolve, in order to ensure that we can resist a design which, even if such measures were taken forward by enhanced co-operation, might have an inimical impact on the interests of this country. Of course, if either measure came forward through the EU process to a decision by the Council or the Commission, it would be subject to scrutiny in the usual way, and Treasury Ministers would, I am sure, give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee if asked to do so.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham also asked about the Juncker initiative. It involves the reallocation of €16 billion from other headings in the EU budget, and €8 billion from European Investment Bank resources. That sum of €24 billion is intended to allow for leveraging from other sources to produce the total of €315 billion that is being discussed.
	A number of Members, notably the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), spoke of the challenge posed by migration across the Mediterranean from Africa. The Government are very active through, for example, the Khartoum process, which involves EU states working with countries in the Horn of Africa, through our support for the three EU common security and defence policy missions which are intended to stabilise Somalia, and through our support for a comprehensive EU approach to the Sahel region. If we bring about more stable governance and some hope of a job and an economic future for the people in those countries, there will be less opportunity for the people traffickers, because there will be less desperation among the people. That needs to be part of this process, along with co-operation on criminal justice to disrupt the people traffickers and prevent them from going about their nefarious trade.
	The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked about bids from this country under the EFSI. The EFSI is still formally to be established. We have drawn up a provisional long list based—
	One and a half hours having elapsed since commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)), That the amendment be made.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5080/15 and Addenda 1 to 4, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2015–A New Start; and supports the Government’s view that the most significant initiatives are those that focus on the strategic priorities set out by the European Council in June 2014 to promote jobs, growth and investment in the EU; and urges the Government to encourage the Commission to develop policies during 2015 relating to the free movement of EU citizens.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this debate, which follows the most recent meeting of representatives of the P5—the declared nuclear weapons states—which took place in London a couple of weeks ago. That was the continuation of a process initiated by the recent Labour Government, and this debate in turn is followed by the NPT conference itself for which, sadly, the ministerial segment will, for the second time in recent years, occur after this Parliament has been dissolved.
	Last Thursday marked the 45th anniversary of the entry into force of the NPT. Designed in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, and on the basis of near universality with 189 signatories, the NPT is a global grand bargain, whereby nuclear weapon states commit themselves to disarming, non-nuclear weapon states agree to remain nuclear weapon free, and all have access to civil nuclear power. This grand bargain has served the international community well for the past 45 years by helping to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, holding the nuclear weapons states to account, and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, something which has assumed greater importance as the threat of climate change has called into question the continued use of fossil fuels.
	Since the treaty was signed, global stockpiles of nuclear weapons have fallen by more than two thirds and several countries have given up their nuclear weapons programmes. Unfortunately, the review conference held in 2005 failed to agree a final document, raising concerns about the future of the NPT. Perhaps in consequence, and not long after, an initiative was taken in the United States by two Republican and two Democrat elder statesmen, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz with Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, calling for greater progress from the nuclear weapons states on their disarmament commitments, which the NPT itself urges them to pursue. Following their initiative, I, as Foreign Secretary, gave a speech to the Carnegie international non-proliferation conference in 2007, outlining our Government’s disarmament agenda: our decision to further reduce our operationally available warheads to the very minimum we considered viable to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent; and our commitment to a substantial programme of work, to the practical steps which would be needed to underpin moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, to working on transparency and confidence-building measures between nuclear weapons states, and, indeed, others, and to the technicalities of verification, particularly methods of verifying commitments on warheads.
	The then Defence Secretary Des Browne addressed the conference on disarmament in 2008 and proposed closer co-operation between the five official nuclear weapons states, including not just regular meetings of
	Government representatives of the P5, but scientific and technical collaboration and co-operation, and meetings among those scientists. Therefore, when President Obama spoke in 2009 of his ambition to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons, there was growing international political momentum for serious discussion about nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and about strengthening the NPT.
	Following all these events, the four American spokesmen contacted me to press us to set up in this country a group like theirs to continue to address these issues. We set up a group called, rather infelicitously perhaps, the Top Level Group, composed of people of all major parties and none, including a number of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. The present chair is the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is in his place.
	More recently, however, the momentum we saw in that period has been waning. This year’s review conference could decide whether that momentum once again gathers steam or grinds to a complete halt, as unfortunately many have come to expect. Many argue that the NPT has been tested to breaking point by failure of the process to deliver disarmament by the nuclear weapons states; by North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty and its nuclear weapons programme; by the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear capability; and by the fact that nuclear armed countries, India and Pakistan, sit outside the treaty regime, along with Israel, which refuses to acknowledge that it possesses nuclear weapons.
	In 2010, with that momentum for change in the political air, the last NPT review conference agreed a 64-point action plan. Unfortunately, progress on the plan has been limited at best. There was, for example, agreement to hold a conference on a WMD-free zone in the middle east to be held in 2012, a zone which has been long sought and is widely agreed to be desirable. Indeed, the Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava was appointed to promote and facilitate such a gathering and has made strenuous efforts to do so over these intervening years. Nevertheless, that conference has not taken place and looks unlikely to occur in the near future.
	Several other key initiatives identified in the action plan also remain stalled, including substantive dialogue between the P5 states. The recent London meeting has resulted in a glossary of agreed terms, but this joint P5 process has been limited in terms of further substantive disarmament efforts. In particular, and sadly, there has been no progress on ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty or the fissile material cut-off treaty.
	In spite of this, there have been some positive developments since 2010. The US and Russia signed and ratified the new START treaty, limiting the numbers of deployed strategic nuclear arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers, and despite current tensions this treaty still remains in force. The UK has further reduced the numbers of warheads deployed on its submarines; three nuclear security summits, instigated by President Obama, have now taken place; and a new initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use has seen growing interest and participation from states and civil society.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Will she say a little more about the series of international conferences on the
	humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons? There have now been three, and record numbers of states have taken part. Does she agree that we should welcome the participation of the UK, even although it only followed a decision by the United States to attend? Does she also agree that every future conference should, as a matter of course, be attended by the UK?

Margaret Beckett: It is not for me to bind future Governments, much as I would like to do so, but of course I welcome the initiatives and discussions on the humanitarian impact. To be frank, I am not sure that we need to say a great deal, because the potential humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapons exchange is clear to all. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that we did push the United Kingdom Government to participate in the previous humanitarian conference. I hope that I am not breaching any confidences in saying that it was a matter of concern for us in the Top Level Group that when we in the Government promoted the notion of the P5 working together more closely on these issues, the last thing we wanted was for that to result in a lowest-common-denominator approach whereby if some of the P5 did not wish to attend, none of them would do so.
	We were therefore very pleased indeed when our own Government decided to attend the humanitarian conference. The hon. Gentleman is probably chronologically correct to say that that followed the decision by the United States to do so, but I think he is being a little unfair to the present Government—perhaps uncharacteristically at this stage of the Parliament—by implying that that was the only reason that they decided to go. We had been pushing for them to do so, and we had been conscious that they were not reluctant to attend. We are very glad that the partnership of the UK and the US attended. That was the first time that any of the P5 countries had participated in the humanitarian initiative, and along the trajectory of the events now taking place the negotiators are continuing to work hard to secure a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme.
	There have thus been a few positive developments, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Concerns have been raised at every review conference of the NPT, and they continue to be raised, about the failure to implement many of the commitments agreed—and those agreements were often hard-fought. It is critical that we reiterate and reinforce the importance of the treaty to the international community and the global nuclear regime. Many take the opportunity of the review conferences to question the viability and role of the treaty and the effectiveness of the UN disarmament machinery. I can perhaps understand some of those concerns.
	The humanitarian impacts initiative has been seen by some as a means to circumvent the slow progress by the nuclear weapon states on their NPT disarmament obligations. There is a danger that the NPT bargain will begin to fracture unless all members, nuclear and non-nuclear, work in good faith to implement the provisions of the treaty. The nuclear risks that we face today are growing, not falling, and it is vital—as the American Secretary of State, John Kerry, said a few days ago—that we work to strengthen the NPT, not to undermine it.
	We need urgent progress in several areas. The US, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and other countries that have not yet ratified the comprehensive
	test ban treaty should do so as soon as possible, allowing it to come into force. The long stalemate in the Geneva disarmament conference on a fissile material cut-off treaty must be overcome to allow for a prohibition of the production of the basic materials required to manufacture nuclear explosive devices. Global leaders also need to stay focused on nuclear materials security: locking down the materials that can be used to build a bomb should be among the highest priorities of Governments, and officials must work to build an effective global system to track, protect and manage them. I fear that, unless we face up to our responsibilities and seek collectively to address these challenges, we are likely to face an even more dangerous and unstable nuclear future.

John Stanley: This is a necessary and timely debate, and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on securing it. Like many others on both sides of the House, I had until recently been moderately optimistic that we were winning the battle against nuclear proliferation. We had seen South Africa, and Libya under Gaddafi, coming out of the nuclear weapons business. We had also seen a substantial swathe of the former Soviet Union countries—now supposedly, and hopefully, independent sovereign states—no longer having nuclear weapons stationed on their soil.
	More recently, however, I have become concerned that the battle that we were winning appears to be in danger of going into reverse. On the Korean peninsula, the North Korean regime under Kim Jong-un seems determined to try to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. If that happens, I fear that it will call into question the nuclear weapons possession policy of, say, the Japanese Government. In south Asia, we have the wholly unresolved question of the nuclear weapons situation between India and Pakistan. In the middle east, whatever the outcome of the current negotiations on Iran, I believe that the Iranians will try to maintain a break-out capability. I understand from recent conversations with Ministers in Saudi Arabia that if Iran does break out and obtain a nuclear weapon, we cannot rule out the subsequent possession of a nuclear weapon by Saudi Arabia.
	This debate is therefore necessary and important. We should not forget, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, that we still have a chemical weapons convention that is not being adhered to or acceded to by key countries, including Egypt, Israel and North Korea. We also have a convention on biological and toxin weapons that remains without a verification regime, which leaves that convention resting on paper and on trust. I was grateful to the Minister for sending me, in my capacity as Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, a copy of the Government’s national report to the 2015 nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. I have to say that I found the report strong on the pluses, but rather limited on the more negative aspects of nuclear proliferation—some key issues and problems were skated over and others were not referred to at all.
	I should like to pick out some key issues from the Government’s report. As the right hon. Lady has said, the comprehensive test ban treaty is of key importance;
	as we all know, it is not possible to have a truly effective nuclear weapon unless it has been subject to testing. I agree entirely with what the Government say in their report:
	“The UK recognises the CTBT as a key element of the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture”.
	That is absolutely correct, and it is a matter of immense frustration to all of us that we still have eight remaining countries whose ratification of the CTBT is necessary in order to bring the treaty into force: China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the USA. I hope the Government will take the opportunity of the review conference to try to mobilise the maximum possible international pressure on those countries to secure their accession to the all-important CTBT.
	The Government devote two paragraphs in their report to the planned—I stress that it is still no more than planned—fissile material cut-off treaty. I find those paragraphs most disappointing. The Government do not even skate over the real problem; they omit any mention of it, which is deeply regrettable. We all know why negotiations on the FMCT have not even commenced —why they have been stalled for years in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. It is simply because neither India nor Pakistan can reach agreement on what should be the treatment of their existing fissile material stocks. Those two countries and their disagreement have put into baulk the start of any negotiation on the FMCT. That is coupled with the fact that the Conference on Disarmament works on the basis of “consensus”, which everybody chooses to interpret as unanimity only. I simply do not understand why the Government fail to indentify that in their report as the key stumbling block.
	The Minister will doubtless say in his reply, “There’s no need to worry, because the FMCT Group of Governmental Experts is going to resolve the deadlock.” I believe that is considerably optimistic and it may prove to be purely wishful thinking. In the Committees on Arms Export Controls, we have recommended to the Government that they should set a deadline for negotiations to start. In the absence of a deadline, there seems to be a compelling case for starting the negotiations in another forum, perhaps in a specially constituted commission, possibly within the United Nations. It is imperative that the negotiation of this treaty begins and is not subject to permanent delay as a result of the obstruction created by just two nations.
	Given the key importance of missile technology control in preventing nuclear proliferation, I was disappointed that the Government make no mention of the Missile Technology Control Regime in their report. There are key holders of nuclear weapons that remain outside the MTCR, including China, India, Israel and Pakistan. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not the Government are actively seeking those countries’ membership of the MTCR? That information would be of great use to the House.
	Another key nuclear non-proliferation organisation, which I am glad to say is referred to in the Government’s report, is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which, again, some key nuclear weapons holders are not yet members. I am referring to India, Israel and Pakistan. Will the Minister tell the House whether it is the Government’s policy to try to seek the membership of those countries to the Nuclear Suppliers Group?
	On the hoped-for middle east weapons of mass destruction free zone, the Government’s report makes all the right noises. It says:
	“We look forward to convening an inclusive conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction…as soon as the practical arrangements for that conference are agreed by the states of the region.”
	The key issue here, and the catch in the Government’s wording, is that the conference will not take place until the practical arrangements for it are agreed by the states of the region. The point here of course is that Israel and Iran will not and have not managed to reach agreement over the terms of their participation in such a conference. On that I certainly agree with the Government that without the participation of Iran and of Israel, there would be little purpose in having such a conference.
	Finally, I am pleased that the little known but increasingly important additional non-proliferation scheme, the UK’s academic technology approval scheme, at least gets one paragraph in the Government’s report. The scheme, rightly brought in by the previous Government and continued by the present Government, enables us to debar students from UK universities if they are considered to pose the greatest risk by access to subjects that could lead to the proliferation of knowledge about weapons of mass destruction.
	When the scheme was introduced by the previous Government, it was limited solely to debarring students from abroad coming to study at UK universities. Even when it was brought in, that decision was possibly somewhat questionable. But today, I suggest that the limitation of the scheme solely to those from abroad is really wholly non-sustainable in security terms. We have a threat level in the UK that is almost unprecedented. We know that we have hundreds of young people, who, most regrettably, have chosen to go to fight for Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq, and it has been widely reported that substantial numbers of those have now returned to the UK.
	The Committees on Arms Export Controls have, in successive reports, advocated that the Government extend the academic technology approval scheme to cover those who are in the UK, and not just merely students from abroad. Inexplicably, the Government have so far refused to accept the Committees’ recommendation, and I urge the Government in strong terms to do so given the current threat that we now face.
	In conclusion, I wish the Government well in trying to achieve a substantive and effective outcome of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. They most certainly need to do so, as we are living in an increasingly dangerous world.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have four people who have indicated that they wish to speak. If we go up to 13 minutes but no more, we will get everyone in on the same time.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased we are having this debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)
	on her initiative in applying for it through the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that it sets a precedent so that whenever a major treaty discussion is coming up the Government take part in a serious debate in the Chamber to set out their stall ahead of the conference and allow Members of the House to put their points of view.
	To follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who spoke powerfully and effectively, let me say that there are massive dangers facing the world with nuclear weapons. There are dangers of proliferation, so we have a huge responsibility in the forthcoming NPT review conference to decide what we will do about it and what role we will take in the conference.
	I have attended previous NPT review conferences and some of the preparatory committees, or PrepComs, which happen every year. There is a five-year review and an annual PrepCom. I remind the House that the initiative in setting up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty system came in part from a previous Labour Government led by Harold Wilson in an era when there was hope that the declared nuclear weapons states could, by their own actions and the actions of others, bring about overall disarmament in this world.
	Although there are many cynics around, the NPT system has worked quite well. It has two important pillars. Let me take the second first, which is that the signatories to it that are not in possession of nuclear weapons must undertake not to develop them, use them or seek to have them in any way. By and large, that has been successful. Indeed, some former nuclear states, such as South Africa, have disavowed nuclear weapons and made themselves into non-nuclear states.
	Crucially, the five permanent members of the NPT, which are the same as the five permanent members of the Security Council, must do the following under article VI:
	“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
	Britain is committed to those words of the treaty and in the run-up to the review conference should therefore consider two points. The first is the good work that has been done by so many states to divest themselves of nuclear weapons and bring about nuclear weapon-free zones, such as in Africa and Latin America. Central Asia has achieved a great deal and should be congratulated on that. The second is the role we seek to play in that and how we bring about further nuclear disarmament around the world.
	The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was right to point out that previous review conferences, led by the late Robin Cook, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and by others, consistently made a strong case for a weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference to be held for the middle east. It is crucial that that conference takes place. I have attended previous review conferences and PrepComs in which the inability of the secretariat to convene such a conference—the Finnish Government have been tasked with that—has led to threats and walk-outs from the review conference, although not from the treaty system, because people are concerned that that conference has
	not taken place. At the last review conference and the last PrepCom every single nation attending, including Iran—Israel is not a signatory to the NPT—agreed that the conference should take place and once again the Government of Finland and others were tasked with ensuring that that happened. So far, it has not.
	If that conference does not take place and there is not some progress on general disarmament across the middle east, the consequences, as explained by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, are obvious. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and many other countries have the resources, whether they want these weapons or not. What about Egypt? We can think of many examples of very wealthy countries in the region that could either buy the nuclear technology or develop it in concert. If there is not a general agreement on disarmament across the region that includes Israel and Iran, we will see the start of a nuclear arms race with incalculable dangers to the rest of the world. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will say that the talks that have taken place with Iran and the Government’s close relationship with Israel will put a great deal of pressure on this year’s review conference to set the date when the middle east conference can take place so that we can begin that process. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but if it does not take place, the dangers will be huge. One should not run away with the idea that everyone in Israel or Iran wants nuclear weapons, or wants to use them, or believes that their security comes from nuclear weapons. There are substantial bodies of opinion in both countries that there is a different way forward in the region.
	A parliamentary delegation from Iran are visiting the House this week; I met them earlier this evening. They are very welcome. We will have a discussion with them on Wednesday morning. I hope that talks with them will focus on the nuclear issue—I am sure that they will—and human rights in Iran; that ought to be part of the dialogue. We should have that dialogue with all countries.
	The dangers are so obvious. I hope that in his speech the Minister will outline the view that the UK Government will take in New York. Now that we are apparently into fixed-term Parliaments, every time there is a non-proliferation treaty review it will coincide with the British general election. That is more than unfortunate, because clearly it means that Ministers cannot attend at least the early part of the conference. If there is a change of Government—most of us hope that there will be—only some time on will the new Minister, or newly appointed Minister, be able to attend. The coincidence in the dates is very unfortunate indeed.
	The humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons have been referred to. Three conferences were held on this: one by the Norwegian Government in Oslo, a second in Mexico, and the third, more recently, in Vienna, hosted by the Austrian Government. I attended the conference in Vienna, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is speaking for the Scottish National party tonight. We took part in a very interesting round-table discussion for parliamentarians on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.
	If anyone is ever in any doubt about the need to move on from a dry, strategic debate—from “Nuclear this, nuclear that” and “Threat here, threat there”—I ask them to read the documents that were presented to the conference, and to think of the videos that we saw, about what the effect would be of one nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. There is the effect on the local climate and local economy, and the death of very large numbers of the population living anywhere near the explosion. There are also the catastrophic effects of multiple explosions, including a nuclear winter that would damage the climate and life chances of the entire planet. We are dealing with not battlefield bombs, but weapons of total destruction; that is what a nuclear weapon is for.
	The Austrian Government were very serious about the conference, organised it extremely well, and gave a great deal of time and space to scientists and others to speak, and then to Governments to speak on the second day. I was delighted when the British Government announced that they would attend, along with the US Government. I wish that China, France and Russia had also been there. I suspect that they were there in observer capacity, at least; there was certainly a very large number of people observing that conference.
	I was quite disappointed by the British Government’s statement at the conference. I ask colleagues to think for a moment of the atmosphere when the South African representative outlined why South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons, and how the continent of Africa became a nuclear weapon-free zone, and to think of the moral strength that gave South Africa at the conference. That was followed by the British saying that we needed to keep nuclear weapons for our own security. If we need to keep weapons for our own security, we have to be very clear where the threat is coming from and what security the weapons bring us, given that they increase the danger of nuclear proliferation around the world.
	Before I conclude, I will quote a very small part of the interesting Austrian pledge made at the conclusion of the conference:
	“Austria calls on all states parties to the NPT to renew their commitment to the urgent and full implementation of existing obligations under Article VI, and to this end, to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and Austria pledges to cooperate with all stakeholders to achieve this goal”.
	The pledge goes on to say that Austria
	“calls on all nuclear weapons possessor states to take concrete interim measures to reduce the risk of nuclear weapon detonations, including reducing the operational status of nuclear weapons and moving nuclear weapons away from deployment into storage, diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in military doctrines and rapid reductions of all types of nuclear weapons”.
	Thank you, Austria. Well done for that.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for stating the position of the Austrian Government and so many of the other countries that took part in the conference. Given where the UK’s nuclear deterrent is in relation to its lifespan, is it not possible for the UK to embrace the opportunity to follow the courageous moral lead of South Africa and say, “Rather than wasting £100 billion on a new generation of Trident submarines, why not play a positive role in the world towards disarmament by scrapping the Trident programme?”

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree that this would be an opportunity for us to say, “We have looked at the dangers of nuclear proliferation. We recognise our obligations under article VI and we are going to fulfil them this time.” If we go ahead with spending £100 billion, plus whatever the design and redesign costs are, we commit ourselves to a massive expenditure, and to flying in the face of the spirit and moral purpose of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
	I do not suggest cutting the expenditure in order to throw large numbers of people out of work in this country. What I say is, “Cut the expenditure to invest in high quality engineering. Use those skills—they are brilliant skills—to make other things that do not destroy the world, but instead help to build the world, and we pledge ourselves in the direction of a nuclear-free future.” I believe these things are possible and we have a particular obligation to bring that about.
	If the five permanent members refuse to move in the direction that they ought to, who are we to criticise India and Pakistan for not reaching an agreement? Who are we to criticise any other state that wants to develop nuclear weapons? If we want a nuclear weapons-free world, it is possible. We have a responsibility to play a role in that. I hope that when the Minister speaks, he will tell me that he and I will meet in New York. I will be there as an NGO representative. I do not expect to be a representative of any Government after the election. There is relief on the Front Bench. However, I will certainly be in New York because I want to see real progress on nuclear disarmament. It is possible if people have the courage to do it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I suggest that speakers limit themselves to nine minutes now. We have an extra speaker.

Julian Lewis: I will do my best, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I always like to start on a point of agreement with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) where I can, and I can certainly agree with him that whenever there is a major conference of this sort coming up, it is only fit and proper that it should be debated in advance on the Floor of the House of Commons. Therefore, he can always count on me to assist him from my very different point on the disarmament versus deterrence spectrum, and the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) can count on me to assist her, as I did on this occasion, to obtain the debate. I shall always approach the Backbench Business Committee for these debates, just as the hon. Gentleman has always assisted me when I wanted to have a debate about the importance of Britain’s strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. That, I am afraid, is as far as the points of agreement go.
	In the brief time available I will take up a number of the differing suggestions and arguments that we have heard so far. “Who are we to criticise this, that or the other country for obtaining nuclear weapons if we persist in renewing ours?” I’ve got news for people who use that sort of argument: countries that are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons are not going to
	take a blind bit of notice of exhortations or criticisms from the likes of us. When countries acquire nuclear weapons, it is the result of a hard-headed reading of their own strategic interests. They do not do it by reference to whether a peaceful democracy that has a minimum nuclear deterrent, as we do, decides to keep hold of it.

Bob Stewart: What seriously worries me is the fact that Russia has declared that we are an enemy and also suggested that, if necessary, it will use nuclear weapons to pursue the problems it faces abroad. That worries all of us.

Julian Lewis: It certainly does, and to show the ecumenical nature of that concern, let me quote from a recent article in The Herald of Glasgow by a former Labour Defence Secretary, later the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson:
	“Those people seduced by the SNP’s obsession with abolishing Britain’s nuclear deterrent should perhaps Google the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994. They would see there a document representing the deal struck when Ukraine, holding the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, agreed to give them up in return for solemn security assurances from Russia, the US and the UK.
	These countries, with France and China as well, promised to a) respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in its existing borders, b) to refrain from the threat or the use of force against Ukraine, and c) to refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. Don’t these promises look good in the light of the carnage we see on our TVs every night?
	Yet that is what Ukraine got in return for unilaterally disarming. Some bargain. And it is legitimate to ask this; would Crimea have been grabbed and Eastern Ukraine occupied if the Ukrainians had kept some of their nukes?”

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the Budapest memorandum, for which the United Kingdom has a degree of responsibility. Does he not therefore find it extraordinary that the British Government are hardly involved in the talks on the future of Ukraine?

Julian Lewis: I am not sure that we want to start discussing the foreign policy dimension of this now. The only reason I brought Ukraine into this particular debate was in order to focus on the impact on its future of its one-sided disarmament in return for unreliable and undeliverable guarantees from other countries.
	There are two ways of looking at the state of defence, armaments, security and peace in the world. The way to which I subscribe was summarised by an inter-war chairman of the League of Nations disarmament commission, Salvador de Madariaga. He was writing about disarmament, which was very much in vogue in the early 1970s. This is what he wrote in 1973:
	“The trouble with disarmament was (and still is) that the problem of war is tackled upside-down and at the wrong end… Nations don’t distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other. And therefore to want disarmament before a minimum of common agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter.”
	I must point out that the hon. Member for Islington North, being typically objective about the matter, quoted article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty in full. That is
	very important, because often it is quoted only in part. I wish to focus my remaining couple of minutes on article 6. It states:
	“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date”.
	In so far as that affects Britain, it can be seen that we do not engage, and never have engaged, in a nuclear arms race. We have a policy of possessing a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent. Indeed, over the years, successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—have reduced the number of warheads in that deterrent. And what direct response has there been to each and every one of those unilateral reductions? A big, fat zero. The ending of the nuclear arms race certainly applies to Russia and the United States, but it does not apply to China, Britain or France, because none of us has ever engaged in it.
	Article 6 goes on with a commitment to
	“nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
	That leads me to my final substantive point. There has been a lack of emphasis on the overall picture of what is recommended by article 6. It recommends not only a nuclear-free world, but a conventional arms-free world, so that we do not end up in a situation whereby countries get rid of all of their nuclear weapons and leave conventional arms bristling in the hands of the protagonists. We do not want to create a situation where, unless we are crazy, we abolish one type of deadly weapons system—whose use lies not in the firing of it, but in the possession of it so that nobody starts firing any such weapons—and replace it with a world that is riven by all the old rivalries that bubble away beneath the surface and that would rise to the surface once again if the threat of the balance of terror is removed.
	When we get to that happy state—when we have a world Government and the lion lies down with the lamb—we can be absolutely confident that the moment has come to get rid of those nuclear weapons and, while we are at it, get rid of the navies, the armies, and the air forces as well. Some might say, “That’s nonsense. We don’t want to get rid of those conventional forces, because aggressors would take advantage of that against victim countries.” However, if that is what we think those aggressors would do if we get rid of all our conventional arms, we should ask ourselves what they would do if, without resolving those tensions and rivalries, we get rid of the nuclear stalemate and open up the world once again for conventional slaughter on a massive scale.

John Woodcock: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Indeed, I have followed him far more often during my five years in Parliament than I ever envisaged I would when I first entered the House. I have also found myself in agreement with him far more than I had expected. May I implore him, however, not to use again the analogy of going around undressed in winter? That would make for a happier experience for everyone in the Chamber.
	I want my party and my country to lead the way on non-proliferation. I am deeply proud to be sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who as Foreign Secretary made Britain the very first country in possession of nuclear weapons to sign up to the ambition of global zero. That was a hugely important moment. The question is not whether but how to advance the cause of non-proliferation and disarmament.
	Had I known that I would be following the hon. Member for New Forest East, I would have calibrated my arguments, because I want to make exactly the point that he has made. Under the previous Government, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the United Kingdom did many laudable things on non-proliferation, including, unlike any other member country of the P5, the reduction to a single platform. That is often not taken into account in the debate about submarine renewal: every other nation has other platforms, but we have gone down to a single platform, hugely reduced our stockpiles and de-targeted our weapons system. But what progress has there been? It is very hard or impossible to show how that has advanced the cause of non-proliferation, despite our good intentions in doing it.
	To those who think that further unilateral gestures could kick-start some new move towards a nuclear-free world, I would say that that is just a fundamental misconception of what motivates states to acquire nuclear weapons. They do so not because they fear that America or the United Kingdom will launch a nuclear strike against them, but either to protect themselves from their nearer neighbours or to be able to threaten them.
	If we are to accept the idea that a unilateral gesture could bring further progress, we must be able to answer this question: if the United Kingdom and America decided tomorrow to give up their nuclear weapons, would the world be more safe or less safe, and would we be less likely to have a nuclear catastrophe? It is unquestionably the case that instances of nuclear blackmail or threats of a nuclear catastrophe that destroys the world would be very significantly more likely if America and the United Kingdom were simply to get rid of their weapons without securing disarmament by other nations, particularly Russia.
	That is why my party will never return to the days of the unilateralism of the 1980s. We will never accede to the demands of the Scottish National party and disarmers in other parties. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has vacated the Chamber after making his fatuous and wrong point about nuclear weapons. We will not do so, because it would be irresponsible and would set back, not advance, the cause of non-proliferation.
	Although some people would try to argue otherwise, there is no conflict between my spending most of the day in Barrow shipyard with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), a shadow Defence Minister, looking at the programme for renewing our deterrent submarines, and my standing here to advocate the best course to advance non-proliferation.
	If we decided not to proceed with renewal, that would be precisely such a grand unilateral gesture. It would be deferred, perhaps by two decades, but it would mean that the United Kingdom abrogated its responsibility to its own citizens and those in allied countries under the UK’s nuclear umbrella in Europe.

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman is making a very solid case about our participation in the treaty. Outside the general agreement across the House on maintaining our nuclear deterrent, could we not make good headway on fissile materials, the transfer of academic technology and the Nuclear Suppliers Group?

John Woodcock: Yes, exactly. The hon. Gentleman makes very well the point on which I shall finish in a moment.
	Such a gesture would not only abrogate our responsibility to our NATO allies, but would harm, not help, the push for disarmament by giving away the prospect of the UK being part of a future binding multilateral deal that reduced the nuclear stockpiles and nuclear capability of other nations. We must be honest and realistic about the environment in which the treaty will be discussed, and understand that without the renewal of constructive engagement with Russia there is no prospect of the great breakthrough that we ultimately need.
	It is essential to pursue all the measures that have been mentioned by Government Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South, both because they are important in and of themselves, and because they send the clear signal that we will never deprioritise the need for nuclear disarmament. Any future Labour Government will remain committed to the goal of global zero. We will do the right and responsible thing while the world remains unstable and while potential adversaries, such as Russia, are greatly increasing their nuclear capabilities, rather than engaging in meaningful discussions on scaling them back. We will push for change and for the binding multilateral deal that is the only way we will achieve our ultimate goal of global zero.

Alistair Burt: I add my thanks to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I agree with all colleagues who have spoken about the need for and importance of this debate.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby South for referring to my role in convening the Top Level Group of UK parliamentarians for multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. I commend the work of the European Leadership Network with which we are associated and that of its director, Ian Kearns, who has produced a very good briefing for us, which contains conclusions and a letter of statement about the steps that are needed to make the 2015 review conference successful. I commend that briefing to the Minister and to the House. I may return to it if there is time later, but I doubt there will be.
	I was in the happy position of being the Minister responsible for this issue at the time of the 2010 NPT conference. I had the experience that was described by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), of arriving as a new Minister and after just two weeks having to address the Security Council and take part in negotiations. I do not say that I negotiated, because I did not, but I did take part in the negotiations that were going on in the conference.
	May I put on the record my thanks to all those who are involved in the NPT and the arms control team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I thank
	Ambassador John Duncan, who was there in my time, Jo Adamson who succeeded him and Mark Lyall Grant. The work that is done by our mission at the United Nations in New York and by our team in Geneva is first rate.
	Being at such negotiations gives one a sense that this whole business is not about grand gestures but about hard graft. Romantic though I am, and although on occasion I lean in the direction that the hon. Member for Islington North espouses on a number of different causes, my romantic nature comes to an end in dealing with this business, and I am much more on the realistic side set out by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). My experience not just of the NPT but of the arms control treaty is that success is gained through hard graft and much detailed work. A lot of that work is unsung and is done behind the scenes. It is negotiated by people who appreciate each other’s positions. The grand gesture is left to those outside. The detailed work that maintains our security is more likely to be done by those who share the same interests and some of the same fears.
	The role of non-governmental organisations and others in the conference is genuinely important. Often, their ideas are not quite as fanciful as their rhetoric makes out. They are pretty hard-headed and know what can and what cannot be achieved. They are a necessary part of the process because they nudge us along. At the end of the day, reality kicks in and they are usually sensible enough to know what can and what cannot be achieved. I pay tribute to them. I met a number of them in New York and subsequently. They play a valuable role.
	The moment we leave our senses at the front door and opt for the grand gesture, we are to some extent at risk. There are places in politics where one can take a risk and if it does not work, so what? There are other places where taking a risk means putting oneself and others in peril. My sense of those negotiations and my hope for the next stage is that we remember that but keep going.
	I have three observations on the treaty. First, on more than one occasion I have described the WMD-free zone in the middle east as the most optimistically titled endeavour I have ever come across, but it is really important. As the Minister knows, it was one of the keys to getting that 2010 agreement where a number of middle eastern countries—not least Egypt—were keen for progress to be made. I have always shared the aspirations of those who believe that it is worth keeping going in this endeavour. If it happens, it will be a symbol of confidence in the region and add to it, but that will not happen unless the confidence is there. The work done by my friend Jaakko Laajava has been intense, and I know that he has every support from the United Kingdom. That the initiative has not happened is not a dodge; it is because the necessary confidence must be slowly and carefully built up. As we see in negotiations with Iran, and in Israel’s concerns about its security, that will not happen unless painstaking work goes on, but it is important not to lose sight of the importance of this endeavour and to press ahead with it.
	Secondly, the right hon. Member for Derby South referred to the NPT as a “grand bargain”, which it is, and there are rights all round. Part of that decision in 2010 was to reaffirm the inalienable rights of all parties to the NPT to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That applies as much to Iran as to anybody else. The current
	process to convince Iran—as well as the need for others to abide by the treaties if Iran is to abide by its part—is equally important. That is why I believe that the work being done on that deal at the moment, which will involve recognition of Iran’s right to civil nuclear power, will be an important part of what is being done.
	Thirdly, let me mention the humanitarian aspect. I slightly regret the fact that when I was in office I did not sign up to the humanitarian conference that took place in Mexico. I was very undecided, and in the end I was persuaded by the argument that it was some back-door attempt to get a convention and that we would lose what the NPT was about. I am not so sure that that is really the case, and I am pleased that the Minister agreed to this year’s conference. Just a few months ago someone from one of the non-governmental organisations said something that I agreed with about why such a conference is important, which was that my generation grew up with the idea of what nuclear war could be.
	I am young enough to remember some of the old films, and the CND debates and cruise missiles and all that they meant in ending the cold war, and everything we achieved. I remember the awful films that the hon. Member for Islington North referred to, the destruction we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the terrible warnings, but a generation is growing up now that has no knowledge of that whatsoever. It is history; it is not what it was for us, which was the threat that when we went to bed we did not know what might happen the next day. To remind the world of what could happen seems not fanciful but important, not so that people leap in the air and say, “We must have none of these things”, but to make us realise why we must continue this progress and get somewhere with what the NPT grand bargain means and that that involves multilateral nuclear disarmament. I commend those who work on those different aspects to remind us of that.
	In conclusion, at the end of the day this will not be a matter of legalese and what is in a treaty. It is a matter not of law but of will, and the world has not yet demonstrated the will for this, although the patient hard work is designed to get there. It is not about the detail but about the trust that will lead to the final stages of what work on the treaty has been about. It is not about the substance of negotiations but what is going on off-conference. It is about Ukraine, Iraq and Iran; it is about Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. It is about all those things that are happening off-side, because that plays into the confidence that is needed. I therefore very much agree with the conclusion of an article in The Economist last week:
	“But for now the best that can be achieved is to search for ways to restore effective deterrence, bear down on proliferation and get back to the dogged grind of arms-control negotiations between the main nuclear powers.”
	When it comes down to dogged determination to get the best deal, I know that the Minister is supported by the best team in the world who will do their best to ensure that we and all others succeed in the eventual aim of this grand bargain.

Paul Flynn: I believe that this debate is about to take a turn that we have not seen in recent years. It has been very difficult to discuss Trident
	in this Parliament. Although I hope and will do all I can to make sure that colleagues in my party in Scotland are re-elected, the message I see day after day is that we are likely to have a group of people here who have put the ending of Trident at the top of their agenda. That will be a very significant change in this place. The suggested alternative of a grand coalition, if it went ahead, would not include many Labour Members.
	The cost of Trident is £100 billion over its lifetime. Last week, a £5 billion increase in the cost of the clean-up in Sellafield was announced. On the same day, the news that we had sold our share of Eurostar was given headline treatment. It was sold for a seventh of the increase in the cost of the clean-up of Sellafield. The cost of clearing up the waste from Sellafield, mostly from the weapons we have created, will eventually cost more than £100 billion. These are vast costs. If we have in the new Parliament a phalanx of Members who put a very high priority on the elimination of Trident, we will have a public debate. I believe that that public debate will have a very significant effect.

John Spellar: Yet again, my hon. Friend repeats the £100 billion figure. Would he mind telling us how much a year that actually represents?

Paul Flynn: Taken over the period, I have given the accepted figure. I am not going into the details. I know the arguments, but the figure is realistic. The costs are enormous, but for the waste it is even greater. Forget about the cost of Trident, just concentrate on the cost of the clean-up that is going on at the moment. The clean-up of Sellafield has just been nationalised by the Government. The Labour Government actually privatised it some seven years ago.
	It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who I heard on “Desert Island Discs” say that her greatest regret in a very distinguished parliamentary career—I had the great honour of being part of her team with Robin Cook in the late ’80s on the different subject of social security—was that progress has not been made on nuclear disarmament. I think there is a mistaken impression that there are those who believe in getting rid of all weapons overnight. That has never been the aim of the anti-nuclear movement. The aim has been to progress towards countries reducing their stockpiles and reducing the risks, until eventually there are probably just two nations possessing nuclear weapons: America and Russia. I believe that is the likely way ahead.
	The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has been making speeches on this subject for many years. I believe he is in a state where he ignores from his calculations the existence of the United States and regards us as the key player. That is only right if we believe we are back in the gunship days of the 19th century. If there is an attack on the Baltic states, they will not come looking for us to defend them; they will look towards the United States. The NATO countries met in my constituency in September. Of those 28 nations, how many are nuclear powers? Just three of them. The rest are not. The belief that we must punch above our weight—a hangover from Victorian times—has done us much damage. We did it in Iraq and Helmand. We punched above our weight, spent beyond our interests and died beyond our responsibilities.
	I received a letter today from the Minister about the event on Friday to recall the heroism of those who died in Afghanistan, saying we had to be grateful to them because they reduced the threat of terrorism in Britain. No they did not—our being in Iraq and Helmand increased the terrorist threat. We did not get rid of the Muslim bodies threatening us; we multiplied them. We went from small organisations in one or two countries to a threat in many countries throughout the world. I was once expelled from the House for saying that Ministers were not telling the truth when they said to our soldiers, “Go to Afghanistan and you will stop bombs coming to the streets of Britain.” It was never true. It was never true when Tony Blair said he was going into Iraq to stop terrorism.
	We have this whole mismatch—this idea that the threats in the world can be held back by nuclear weapons—but the threats are very different. We cannot hold back terrorism with nuclear weapons. We cannot hold back global warming with nuclear weapons. We cannot provide clean water to our planet with nuclear weapons.

Bob Stewart: But we can hold back the Russians from firing their weapons at us with nuclear weapons, and they have declared they are prepared to use them.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the Russians would do that, knowing they would be committing suicide and that they would be attacked by America, not us? This is the delusion. We do not believe that the 28 countries of NATO, protected by America’s weapons, will ever be attacked by Russia with nuclear weapons. Thank goodness, we have had this long period of 70 years during which, by luck and good management, no nuclear weapons have been dropped—well, four were dropped over Palomares, and one of them has never been recovered, but we have never had a situation where a nuclear event seemed likely, with all the consequences that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned but about which we have forgotten: of a global winter and other horrors.
	We have to learn lessons and unite the world. There are many reasons to be optimistic. John Kerry has said:
	“All countries…profit when there is smart, continuous action in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”
	President Obama has said:
	“The United States seeks the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”.
	On 6 February, at the conference organised in London by the Foreign Office for the P5, the UK, the US, Russia —significantly—France and China, the P5 issued a statement saying:
	“At their 2015 Conference the P5 restated their belief that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains the essential cornerstone for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and is an essential contribution to international security and stability.”
	For goodness’ sake, can we not proceed positively by seeking disarmament and trying to build confidence among the nations, instead of wallowing in the old cold war antagonisms and fantasies about our supreme position among the family of nations? That is not our position. We should pursue what realistic chances there are to reduce the tension and great danger from nuclear weapons.

John Spellar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on leading this debate and on her role in these issues over many years, not to mention her role in our party in a number of positions. She set the tone for the debate by the way she introduced it. It has been a good humoured, but extremely well informed debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was right to mention a degree of optimism. If we look back to when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was originally drafted, we see that the expectations for the spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons were far worse than has been the outcome. What happened is certainly not perfect, but it is much better than was anticipated.
	We have seen significant reductions in weapons worldwide, and particularly among the arsenals of Russia and the United States, which reflects the theme running through the debate that disarmament follows confidence, rather than confidence following disarmament. Many fewer countries than anticipated, although still too many, have proliferated, and Britain has played a prominent role in that, which we should not underestimate.
	Under the previous Labour Government, in which I served as a Defence Minister, we cut the number of operationally available warheads from 300 at the time of the ’98 strategic defence review to fewer than 160 by the time of the 2010 general election. We reduced the number of warheads carried by submarines from 96 to 48, and we withdrew the WE177 nuclear capability from service. It is important, too, that there has been a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on that path, and I am pleased that the current Government have continued in that vein, and that the UK has been one of the most transparent of the nuclear powers in dealing with that.
	As I indicated, the relationship between the US and Russia is the crucial one in nuclear negotiations. Those countries are the clear and indispensable leaders, I suppose one could say, with the overwhelming majority of nuclear capability. Reference was made to the strategic arms reduction treaty and to the on-off discussions that go on. Considerable developments have taken place, such as a substantial amount of nuclear material being removed not only from the United States but with the co-operation of the United States and Russia—yet things are not necessarily heading in the right direction.
	We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles. Sir John Sawers recently indicated that Russia is prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances. So while there are some encouraging trends, the trends are not all in one direction.
	The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) reminded us that the prospect of nuclear war is horrific, but that conventional war is pretty awful as well. A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the
	fire bombings in Tokyo consumed huge numbers of lives, as indeed did the fire bombings in Hamburg, and we have recently heard more controversy over what happened in Dresden.
	The horrors of civil war in Syria show that it is not only state-on-state conflict that can cause such tragedy and devastation. It can happen in well-armed civil wars, as well. Nor is it only in this or the previous century that we have seen these horrors. It was not a general during this or the 20th century who aptly said “war is hell”. It was General Sherman, who had seen more than enough of that during the American civil war, which led to huge loss of life and injury.
	As the hon. Member for New Forest East rightly said, countries do not distrust each other because they are armed, but are armed because they distrust each other. That applies to nuclear issues as between India and Pakistan. The issue is not their possession of nuclear armaments, but the incessant pressure that they exert on each other and the great distrust that exists between them. I was very encouraged by the fact that embarking on discussions with Pakistan was one of the first acts of the new President Modi in India. That process will not be easy, but it is enormously important. The same applies in the middle east: disarmament will proceed from confidence, not confidence from disarmament. That is why it is so crucial for peace talks to be restarted, notwithstanding the difficulties that have arisen along the way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West repeated what has been said in other debates that have been based on the proposition that nuclear weapons are an inappropriate response to many of the very real contemporary threats that we face, such as terrorism, insurgencies, cyber-attacks and climate change. Of course, they were never designed for that purpose. That is not their role. They are focused on state-on-state conflicts.
	In Europe, given the increasing assertiveness of Russia, we are starting to see the re-emergence of that scenario. It is not only the actions in Ukraine that are causing concern; they are merely the most extreme symptom of a number of problems that have been manifesting themselves. There are, for instance, increasing pressures on countries in the “near abroad”, especially the Baltic states. I am pleased that the Government have responded by engaging in military co-operation with those states, along with other NATO countries. There are the cyber-attacks by which Estonia has been hit particularly badly. NATO is currently discussing whether a significant cyber-attack constitutes an article 5 attack on a member state. There is also increased maritime activity, especially submarine activity. Let me depart briefly from the slightly more bipartisan attitude that I have adopted in this debate, and say that I think it was absurd for a country that is as dependent as ours on its sea lanes for both trade and security to lose its maritime patrol capability. We have also seen the testing of our aviation defences, which has been very well publicised recently.
	Incidentally, it is not just the United Kingdom that is experiencing such problems. They are also being experienced by, for example, the Scandinavian countries. There is a genuine public debate across a wide part of the political spectrum in two countries that have maintained a position
	of neutrality, Sweden and Finland, about whether they should consider a relationship with, or even membership of, NATO.
	While being cautious, we should also be constructive. Indeed, as one of the P5, we have a special responsibility to be so. That is why—as a number of Members have mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) wrote to the Prime Minister in November 2014, urging him to ensure that the United Kingdom was represented at the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in December. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire that that was a difficult and delicately balanced decision, but I think that it was the right decision, because engagement is important.
	That is also why it is important for Britain to play a constructive role in working for a nuclear-free world by not removing itself from the equation through nuclear disarmament, and why, at the Labour party conference, we committed ourselves to a minimum credible deterrent delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent, while taking a leading international role in pressing the agenda of global anti-proliferation. Contrary to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, ours is not a unilateralist party. The Scottish National party, whose members are conspicuous by their absence—they seem to have plenty to say, but they did not actually participate in the debate, apart from one Member who intervened—want to abandon our nuclear capability, while still applying to be part of a nuclear alliance in NATO.
	As a number of Members said, the NPT review is coming up at a very inconvenient time. International conferences have taken place at inconvenient times in the election cycle. Potsdam was slightly disrupted by that, with one Prime Minister at the beginning and another at the end—a very welcome change, of course, and an encouraging precedent—but we should still be engaged, and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly mentioned the officials, the sherpas, who will be working on that. As he rightly concluded, a successful conference will not be achieved by grand gestures; it will be achieved by dogged determination, and although many of the details may seem arid, they are hugely important and relevant. We pay tribute to the officials for their work, and I hope that we have indicated that the UK and this House as a whole are determined that those discussions should succeed. We remain alert, but we also remain positive to working towards achieving a nuclear-free world and a safer world.

Tobias Ellwood: May I begin by joining others in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this informative, detailed and constructive debate to take place? I have an interest in the Top Level Group, which has been mentioned a couple of times. Back in May 2011, it contacted me, to my surprise, because I thought perhaps this was an invitation to join it. It is an elite group for senior parliamentarians. I was not being invited to join, of course, but I was invited to chair a
	meeting taking place in the UK with Senators George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn—sadly, Henry Kissinger could not make it—for the launch of the film “Nuclear Tipping Point”, which the right hon. Lady might be familiar with. That was my introduction to the issues we have been discussing today. They are of such importance that I am very pleased we have had this debate, but, as has been said, the timing of the conference could not, perhaps, have been worse.
	The right hon. Lady reminded us that this is now the 45th anniversary of the NPT, and of the importance of access to civil nuclear power. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley)—who sends his apologies for not being in his place as I understand that there are engineering works on his line—raised a number of issues that I will do my best to cover, and if I do not manage to address any points I will write to him and other Members. He mentioned the comprehensive test ban treaty, and I pay tribute to him for the work he does as chairman of the Committees on Arms Export Controls.
	The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has debated these matters on many occasions in this Chamber. He talked about this debate being a precedent. I concur: it is important that we have a debate prior to these conferences. He also mentioned the Iranian delegation that is in the UK—in London. I will meet it as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) once again demonstrated his expertise in this area. He spoke of the Budapest memorandum and the comments Lord Robertson made, a reminder that that was a political commitment, not a legal obligation, and of the consequences of obligations not being honoured.
	I recently visited Ukraine with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), a pleasurable visit during which we learned about that country and the challenges it faces. I pay tribute to the work done at the shipyard in his constituency, which has served our Royal Navy for so many years.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) speaks with some authority on these matters, being the only former Minister on the Government Benches who has gone to one of the conferences, because of the timing of these events. He mentioned both the Top Level Group—I am pleased he is now chairing it—and the European Leadership Network. He paid huge tribute to the Foreign Office in this context, and I am glad that he did so. I would certainly echo those comments. He mentioned the role of the non-governmental organisations, and I am pleased to say that they are now participating more in these conferences. They play an important role in adding to the debate. He also made an astute observation about the changes in the generational view of the threat, in regard to what we grew up with during the cold war and to how the present generation perceive the threat.
	The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has not changed his views. He made a number of points, and I am sure he will not be surprised to learn that I did not really agree with any of them. As I have said, I will do my best to write to any hon. Members whose questions I have not managed to cover today.
	This Government remain a firm supporter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and of its three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses
	of nuclear energy. The NPT has been a major factor in keeping the world safe since it came into force in 1970, curtailing the nuclear arms race. It remains at the centre of international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately to create a nuclear weapon-free world. All but a handful of the world’s states have now acceded to the NPT, but these accomplishments are not enough, and the treaty will continue to face challenges, as we can see from the nuclear weapons ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
	The Government acknowledge that there is frustration at the perceived slow pace of global disarmament and at the delay in convening a conference on a middle eastern zone that is free from weapons of mass destruction. Agreeing an outcome at this year’s review conference will certainly be challenging. Despite that, we remain confident that consensus can be reached and that the NPT can be strengthened. Consensus proved possible in 2010 when states agreed an action plan setting out a framework for balanced progress across all the three pillars. That was a real achievement and we hope that the review conference will confirm its continued relevance.
	We are committed to doing what we can to bring all sides together and to underlining our commitment to the NPT. I am sure that the House will therefore welcome the fact that, despite the small matter of the forthcoming general election, the Prime Minister has asked the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Anelay of St Johns, to speak during the opening week of the review conference. In addition, our ambassador to the conference on disarmament and a team of cross-Whitehall officials will play an active role during the negotiations.
	Let me outline some of the ways in which we have made progress. First, on disarmament and deterrence, no one in the House should be in any doubt that the UK supports multilateral nuclear disarmament, negotiated in a step-by-step manner. We have made tangible progress unilaterally, and we have steadily reduced the size of our own nuclear weapons stockpile, by well over 50% since the cold war peak. We now have just one delivery system, provided by four ballistic missile submarines. We have made further progress since 2010. The Secretary of State for Defence recently announced that the UK had reduced the number of warheads on each of our deployed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines from 48 to 40, and the number of operational missiles on each of those submarines to no more than eight.
	The Government have also set out their desire to reduce our total nuclear weapons stockpile to no more than 180 by the mid-2020s. We estimate that our warhead inventory now stands at approximately 1% of the global total. This openness reinforces our belief that the UK is the most forward leaning and transparent nuclear weapons state. In this vein, the House will recall that we recently revised our national report to the NPT, detailing our progress. In addition, the UK has led the way on nuclear disarmament verification research. This includes our ground-breaking work with Norway, as well as a long-running programme of work with the United States. We look forward to the continuation and expansion of that work in the next review cycle.
	Multilateral nuclear disarmament will be achieved only if all states are committed to creating a world without nuclear weapons that is safer and more prosperous for all. Globally, we have come a long way, but more
	than 17,000 nuclear weapons still remain. We cannot uninvent them, nor can we rule out a future nuclear threat to the UK. Our own reductions have not always encouraged other states that possess nuclear weapons to follow our example, nor have they influenced those seeking a nuclear weapons capability to abandon their attempts. This Government will therefore retain a credible and effective minimum nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary. That includes a posture of continuous at-sea deterrence, known as Operation Relentless. We have delivered that without pause since April 1969. It is the UK’s most enduring operation and, as both a Minister and an Army reservist, may I pay tribute to the families and the crew of the Royal Navy and all those involved? Continuous at-sea deterrence is the best way to deter the most extreme threats, including nuclear blackmail and a nuclear attack against the UK, our vital interests or our NATO allies.
	Secondly, on the P5 process and the P5 conference, which have been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, relations between Russia and the west have become increasingly strained over the past year, as hon. Members will doubtless be aware. None the less, the UK is committed to a cool but hard-headed approach with Russia. The UK has therefore continued to advocate dialogue between all nuclear weapons states; building trust and mutual confidence are essential first steps towards achieving our goal of a world without nuclear weapons, even during these testing times. The P5 process has therefore continued. We must not forget that before the dialogue was initiated by the UK in 2009 the five nuclear weapons states did not get together as a group to discuss nuclear disarmament issues. The UK hosted the sixth P5 conference in London last month and we believe that this engagement is beginning to deliver. I would recommend the statement I made to the House on 12 February to those who wish to read in more detail about the conference outcomes.
	Thirdly, let me deal with the humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons. The House will recall that the UK participated in the most recent conference in Vienna, mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, on the humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons. Ministers took that decision in part because we recognise the importance that many NPT states and hon. Members of this House attach to this initiative. It was also done because we share the deep concern at the humanitarian consequences that could result from the use of nuclear weapons. Let me make it clear that we hope never to use nuclear weapons, but we do aim to deliver a deterrence effect at all times, and we would consider using our nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO allies. That is why we work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and their technology, and to keep weapons safe and secure.

Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the thrust of the Minister’s argument, but may I urge on him a change in terminology? I would prefer it if he would talk about “firing” nuclear weapons when he is referring to “using” them, because on our side of the argument we believe that they are used every day to keep the peace and prevent other nuclear powers from blackmailing us.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not want to get caught up in the nomenclature, be it firing, launching or something else, but I understand the thrust of what my hon. Friend is trying to say.
	Let me conclude on the conference. Our attendance in Vienna did not mean a deviation from our support for a step-by-step approach to multilateral disarmament. Some in the international community would like to force the pace of disarmament in a way that does not take into account wider security considerations, such as trying to set a fixed timetable for disarmament. We do not support that.
	Fourthly, let me deal with the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said was an interesting description. The UK certainly resolutely supports the goal of the middle east zone free from weapons of mass destruction and the 1995 NPT resolution on the middle east. We also remained committed to convening a conference on such a zone, as was mandated in 2010 by the very conference that he attended.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure the House that the UK delegation to New York will make real efforts to try to ensure that there are side meetings and so on to try to bring about this conference, because the dangers of it not happening are huge?

Tobias Ellwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. New York presents the next opportunity for us to ensure that we push these points forward. It is sad, as Members have said, that we have not been able to move on this matter. Many Members spoke passionately and with concern that, if we do not seek a resolution on this, we could see further proliferation, with nations deciding to turn their back and to seek to arm.
	There has been real progress at the consultations over the past couple of years. Remaining differences can be bridged with political will on both sides. We regret that, to date, further consultations have not proved possible, and we accept, sadly, that a conference will not take place before the review conference. As the hon. Gentleman points out, New York might be the opportunity for us to reconvene on this matter.

Alistair Burt: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the idea of the facilitator, Mr Laajava, to have these consultations resulted from his not being able to secure the conference itself? The consultation, far from being a step away from the conference and therefore something to criticise because it was not getting to the end that we wanted to reach, was a necessary step to build the confidence that would allow the conference to take place. My friend Jaakko Laajava is to be commended for what he is trying to do.

Tobias Ellwood: I certainly agree that, given the work that has been done in the past two years, there are grounds for cautious optimism. We can work towards that in New York at the UN General Assembly.
	Turning to the fissile material cut-off treaty—the FMCT—the Government want negotiations on fissile material cut-off as soon as possible, and we continue to work with partners at the conference on disarmament to press Pakistan to end its block on the start of negotiations.
	The comprehensive test ban treaty was mentioned by a number of Members. The UK has long been a supporter of the comprehensive test ban treaty, and it was one of the first countries, along with France, to ratify the treaty in 1998. We continue to push for the eight remaining annex 2 states to ratify the treaty through bilateral discussions.
	In conclusion, the UK remains deeply committed to the NPT and the principles for which it stands. In many ways, our aims for the review conference are simple: to uphold the NPT across its three pillars along with the web of regimes and controls that complement it; to deter non-compliance and see greater adherence to safeguards; to continue to work for the universalisation of the treaty, bringing the remaining few into the international non-proliferation architecture; to underline again our commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to zero tolerance of proliferation; and to continue to support the global expansion of civil nuclear activity to high standards of safety and security, and in line with non- proliferation obligations. This Government are clear that we will maintain a credible and effective minimum nuclear deterrent based on a continuous at-sea deterrence for as long as the global security environment makes that necessary.

Margaret Beckett: I thank all those who have welcomed this debate, particularly the tone of it. I also thank the Minister for his commitment that such a debate should always precede the review conference in future. I think that everyone has accepted that establishing and maintaining trust is key and that the best way to do that is through the P5 process and other such steps, which continue that hard negotiation and detailed work to which the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) referred. I echo the praise that has been uttered by Members on both sides for our team of officials, but say how much I think it will be a help to them for it to be as clear as it has been in this debate that there is cross-party agreement, across this House, on the importance of this issue, on Britain’s role in trying to help maintain the process of the NPT review conference and on improving and sustaining that vision of a world free of nuclear weapons to which all of us adhere.
	This has been a constructive debate. I welcome all those who have participated and it seems to me that maintaining the vision to which so many have referred is the key to maintaining progress.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the forthcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation
	 — 
	Constitutional Law

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question accordingly agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 and 8 together.

Immigration

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2015, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
	That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question accordingly agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11),

European Semester

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15985/14, a Commission Communication: Annual Growth Survey 2015, No. 15953/14 and Addendum, a draft Joint Employment Report from the Commission and the Council, accompanying the Commission Communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2015, No. 15988/14 and Addendum, a Commission Report: Alert Mechanism Report 2015 (prepared in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EU) No. 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances), and an unnumbered Document, European Economic Forecast Autumn 2014; and acknowledges the priorities identified in the Annual Growth Survey of boosting investment and renewing commitment to structural reform and fiscal responsibility, and the contents of the Alert Mechanism Report.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the house (Westminster Hall) (16 March)

Ordered,
	That the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a sitting should take place in Westminster Hall on Monday 16 March to consider a petition which a Member of the House has requested be debated; and paragraphs (1) and (5) of the Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) shall have effect as if the phrase “e-petition or e-petitions” and the word “e-petition”, wherever they occurred, were replaced by the word “petition”.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

TODMORDEN AND CALDER HIGH SCHOOLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Craig Whittaker: My predecessor, the Labour MP for Calder Valley, tried in vain for 13 years to convince her Government to rebuild both Calder and Todmorden high schools. The two schools have been at the top of the local authority priority list for many years, nay for decades. The problem with the previous Labour Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme was that these schools never hit the criteria to be rebuilt and without a change in the criteria they would never have been rebuilt. The two criteria of the Building Schools for the Future programme were deprivation and underachievement, but neither school was considered by the then Labour Government to be in an area of deprivation and both overachieved according to the criteria set by that same Government. It was therefore inevitable that my predecessor would fail in her attempt to get them both rebuilt under that programme.
	Since becoming the MP for Calder Valley nearly five years ago, as well as for the three years before that, I have had a constant stream of people visit the schools, including the previous Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove); the previous Minister responsible for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); the Minister responsible for school reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb); the Prime Minister’s office; the director of capital at the Education Funding Agency; the director of finance and commercial at the Department for Education; the chief executive of the EFA; and a plethora of people from the funding agency. Every one has either pledged money or agreed that something needs to be done about these schools.
	The problems at the two schools have been extensive, with gas leaks, electricity substations replaced, sewer collapses, banisters on stairwells too low for health and safety, heating systems that are so old that at one end of the building it is like a sauna and the other end it is like a freezer, asbestos, prefabricated buildings that are a couple of decades past their usable life, mould, water retention behind rendered walls, crumbling windows and crumbling windowsills, as well as the fact that both schools battle the blight of flat roofs that need constant repairs and leak like sieves. Those are just a few of the issues.
	At Todmorden high school, the local authority has allocated an additional £250,000 per annum just for unexpected repairs. At Calder high school, when they built the Ted Hughes theatre not too many years ago in memory of our locally born national poet laureate they found that the part of the building on which they were building the theatre had no foundations at all.
	Both schools are a mess. The fact that their teachers teach and pupils learn to their full potential is testament to the excellent heads, their management teams, excellent teachers and superb pupils. Calder high school was built in 1935 but did not open until after the war, in 1950. It was built for 350 students, but today it caters
	for 1,500 students and staff. It was also our country’s first comprehensive school, and with the exception of the separate sixth-form building, built over a decade ago, the building is mainly in its original form—all flat-roofed. Todmorden high school is a specialist high school for visual arts, but trust me, nothing at all about the buildings can be considered visual art. It was built in 1958, it too is all flat-roofed, and it leaks like a sieve. The Pennine wind howls through the windows, which constantly rattle, and the extortionate energy bills add to the global warming issue, rather than keeping the young people in the building warm.
	Imagine the excitement, then, when it was announced that instead of the criteria used for Building Schools for the Future, there would be new criteria around dilapidation and places. Finally, after nearly two decades, these two schools were on a level playing field with others, and everybody assured me that justice would be served. Every school in the UK was to be surveyed, and finally, after the unfairness of Building Schools for the Future, both Todmorden and Calder high schools would be in with a real chance of getting the money, not only because they had been promised it by the Prime Minister, no less, and the Secretary of State for Education, but because the process for getting the money was finally to be fair.
	In this Parliament, there have been only two lots of announcements of funding under the Priority School Building programme: PSBP 1 and, more recently, PSBP 2. Both schools narrowly missed out under PSBP 1; both, after the applications were ranked, came in the early 300s. The Government announced moneys to rebuild the first 261 schools. On that basis, it seemed a sure bet that they would be in the next round. PSBP 2, however, was done on a block-by-block basis, so schools applied to have blocks rebuilt, rather than the whole school. This time, because the Government used the surveys that had been done for prioritising schools, funding for 467 blocks was announced. This time, Calder high was the school with the lower block score, at around 1,700, and Todmorden, which everybody knows locally as being the most dilapidated of the two, scored 2,638, which is absolute nonsense.
	I asked the Minister for Schools only last week about the property data surveys and why he would not publish the rankings of schools. My right hon. Friend replied:
	“we have no plans to publish a ranking list of surveyed schools, which could be misleading without taking into account other information supplied by schools and local authorities with their PSBP 2 bids.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 661.]
	If the DFE is taking into account other information supplied by schools and local authorities, why did we spend millions of pounds on property surveys? Why did the Department not use the statement of priorities, which every local authority uses as a working document, and uses to allocate maintenance spend? That could have saved the Department millions of pounds by preventing the carrying out of additional surveys—surveys that do not appear to be a true reflection of the real state of dilapidation. In fact, it was only a decade ago that it ceased to be a requirement for local authorities to submit those statements of priorities to central Government. I accept that not every local authority will now be using the same format. However, as it is down to individual local authorities to allocate maintenance spend priorities, they will have some form of working document that they use to allocate funds.
	If the survey is not the only basis, in the interests of openness and transparency why will the Minister not let everyone know what other things are taken into account? We know locally that the surveys do not reflect the reality on the ground. If they did, Todmorden high school would be ranked as a higher priority than Calder high school. It is not.
	After reviewing the survey data following the decision about phase 2 of the Priority School Building programme, I raised concerns about how robust the surveys were, in particular for Todmorden high school. After what seemed like a whirlwind tour of all and anyone who would listen, many of them agreed to my request for a second look to be taken at the surveys, particularly that of Todmorden high school. The director, finance and commercial, at the Department for Education and the chief executive of the Education Funding Agency have said they would look again at the surveys. The Prime Minister’s office has said that it would ask for a re-survey. The Secretary of State has said that she will ask for a re-survey. Even the surveyors have said they will do another survey.
	The problem appears to be that the Minister seems to be blocking this. May I ask the Minister why he is blocking attempts to have at least Todmorden high school re-surveyed or the survey re-examined? Similarly, I am told that, even if we did manage to have Todmorden re-surveyed and it was correct, the Minister would not allow it to be added to the list anyway, despite there being contingency within the list. May I ask the Minister if this is true and, if he is blocking any other school being added to the list, why?
	Finally, the Prime Minister promised money for Todmorden high school and the previous Secretary of State for Education promised money. Every person whom I have dragged around the schools over the years agrees that the schools need to be rebuilt, the 2,500 students and teachers at Todmorden and Calder high schools all agree that these schools need rebuilding, and every parent and grandparent of those young people who live and work in those communities know that the schools need rebuilding. Many parents tell me that the schools needed rebuilding when they went to them. Why does the Minister believe that he knows better than all these people? Why will he not reconsider having the schools looked at again? Why will he not agree to put them on the PSB2 programme if he got it wrong?

David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on securing this important debate. I understand how important this matter is to him, and I recognise that he is and has been a strong advocate for the schools in his constituency.
	It clearly is not right for pupils and teachers to work in buildings in a poor condition where learning is disrupted and staff time is diverted from the necessary focus on teaching. High quality school buildings send out an important signal to young people and to those who teach in schools about the importance that we place on education. It can also help to raise the aspirations of many young people, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds, if they are educated in appropriate settings. Investment in the school estate is one of this Government’s
	highest priorities, and it is our aim that every child will have a good quality school place in buildings that are safe and fit for purpose.
	Over this Parliament the Government have spent some £18 billion on school buildings. This year we allocated a total of £1.4 billion to help improve and maintain the condition of school buildings, and have recently announced a further £4.2 billion in school condition funding up to 2017-18. This is in addition to the major investments in the Priority School Building programme, and the announcement of a second phase of that programme. Since 2011, we have also invested £5 billion in the creation of new school places in response to need, and we recently announced a further £1.3 billion in basic need funding for 2017-18 for new school places.
	The Priority School Building programme aims to rebuild or refurbish those schools or individual school buildings in the very worst condition. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we should prioritise on the basis of need, not on the basis of deprivation, attainment or other factors that were considered by previous Governments. Through the first phase of PSBP, 260 schools are being rebuilt or will have their condition needs met. We are now actively engaged with all 260 schools in the programme—19 are already open in new buildings, 82 construction contracts have been signed, and the other schools are all in various stages of design and development. We are still aiming for all schools to be open in their new buildings by the end of 2017, two years earlier than originally planned.
	In May 2014, as my hon. Friend indicated, we launched a second phase of the priority school building programme—PSBP2—a £2 billion programme between 2015 and 2021 to undertake rebuilding and refurbishment projects in schools with buildings in the very worst condition. While the first phase of the programme worked on the basis of the condition of the whole school site, through PSBP2 the Department has refined the approach to target individual school buildings as well as whole-school rebuilds where appropriate. That is for the good reason, as I am sure he will understand, that some schools have a large number of buildings, some of which are in a very good state and some of which are in an absolutely terrible state. It is not reasonable to overlook buildings in a very bad state simply because of the state of some of the school’s other buildings. This allows limited funding to be focused much more tightly on addressing specific issues in a school estate.
	That approach has been made possible by the introduction of the property data survey programme—the most comprehensive survey of the school estate ever undertaken—which has provided information on the condition of individual school buildings. It has sought to do so—I emphasise this for my hon. Friend—in a way that is consistent across the country so that we do not rely on surveys that have been undertaken in very different ways by different local authorities and responsible bodies, on the basis of which it would not be possible to allocate money from central Government because we would not know whether there was consistency across the country.

Craig Whittaker: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about surveys, but the local authority surveys of Todmorden and Calder high schools are consistent. For decades, Todmorden high school has been prioritised
	streets ahead of Calder high, yet under the national surveys it is completely the other way around. Surely there is cause to look again at the national surveys of those two schools, because they are completely at odds with what we know locally.

David Laws: My understanding is that, following my hon. Friend’s representations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the Department looked very closely at the judgments we made on those school buildings, and we continue to believe that they were right, but I will move on to that point in a moment.
	I would like to make it clear at this point that I, as the Minister responsible for the capital programme, have not resisted any proposals that have been put to me in relation to buildings in my hon. Friend’s constituency, or any proposals from anybody in the Government. The Department received expressions of interest in the programme on behalf of 1,299 schools, covering over 3,300 property data survey blocks, which was a much greater number than for PSBP1. That was probably because of the willingness to accept individual block bids and, as my hon. Friend will know from his time on the Education Committee, because PSBP1 had a large private finance element, which put off some bidders, whereas PSBP2 is entirely from public capital.
	Of the 1,299 schools that applied, 277 have been successful, which means that well over 400 school blocks will have their condition needs addressed, as my hon. Friend indicated. Individual school buildings were prioritised for inclusion in the programme on the basis of data from the property data survey programme, together with the information supplied in schools’ expressions of interest. Our aim was to identify those blocks where the poor condition is most highly concentrated, where the continued operation of the school is most at risk and where the cost of addressing the issues would present those responsible for schools with the greatest challenges, given the allocations we are able to give them at a responsible-body level.
	I understand that my hon. Friend has concerns about the property data survey, particularly with regard to Todmorden and Calder high schools. The property data surveys were all conducted by professionally qualified building surveyors and engineers who are experienced in undertaking condition surveys in schools. Consistency among the surveyors was ensured by using detailed guidance and a standardised surveying pro forma developed by the EFA. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors provided feedback to the EFA on the methodology we used throughout the development of the programme and it has endorsed our approach.
	Data from the surveys were subject to a rigorous quality assurance and audit programme. Schools’ responsible bodies were also given the opportunity to review their data and they provided feedback to the EFA on any discrepancies prior to the data being used. I know that Calderdale council raised a number of queries about the property data survey information. They were reviewed by our independent technical advisers in line with our published criteria for changes, and they decided that the original survey information should stand. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands why we took the decision to base the initial property data
	survey on a visual inspection only. An intrusive survey of every one of the schools that applied would potentially have damaged the existing school buildings and increased the risk of our disturbing any asbestos present in each building. The additional costs, as well as the inconvenience to schools, would have been significant.
	We recognise, of course, that every survey has its limitations, which is why we invited those applying to the Priority School Building programme to submit additional local information. We considered the information submitted on asbestos and structural issues alongside the property data survey information. We have published information on the Government website on the methodology used to prioritise the programme.
	In the majority of cases, the schools prioritised for the Priority School Building programme were not even in the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which shows the stark gap between the previous plans and the priorities in many areas. The cost of PSBP schools is up to a third lower than that of BSF schools, saving millions of pounds per school. We are building or improving more than 800 schools during this Parliament, compared with less than 400 under Labour’s BSF programme. We have already completed more than 200 new school buildings since the last election.
	The starting point for deciding on schools for the programme was the information contained in the property data survey, specifically the degree of need shown in the worst two condition grades in the survey, namely condition grade C, where elements are exhibiting major defects and/or not operating as intended, and condition grade D, where they are life expired or at serious risk of imminent failure. The need shown in those grades was then divided by the gross internal floor area of the block to produce a relative condition need value per square metre, to allow sensible comparisons to be made.
	We automatically included in the programme blocks with a significant structural or asbestos need issue that could only be sustainably addressed by rebuilding, as well as those with condition D need that required the most substantial funding and would not otherwise make the programme. The remaining blocks were then ranked by the need per square metre calculation, including any structural and asbestos costings.
	In the case of Calder high school—I believe my hon. Friend has discussed these matters with some of the senior members of the EFA—three blocks were included in the application. In those blocks, the degree of grade C and D need was simply less than those schools that were successful in their application. Indeed, the need was considerably less, as my hon. Friend knows. As part of the prioritisation process, we reviewed the information that was submitted with the school’s expression of interest in relation to structural and asbestos-related issues. As with all structural and asbestos issues raised, they were analysed on a consistent basis by our technical advisers to identify whether the need was immediate and significant enough to be accepted for automatic inclusion or for additional need to be priced and considered in the ranking process. The issues identified at the school did not, unfortunately, pass that assessment.
	In the case of Todmorden high school, the expression of interest covered six blocks that all made up a single block as part of the property data survey. Again, the simple fact was that in the worst two condition grades C
	and D, the property data survey showed the school to have low need. Actually, it was shown to have no need at all in the worst condition grade D, and certainly much lower need than schools that were ultimately selected as part of the programme.
	My hon. Friend will know that another of his schools was successful in the Priority School Building programme 2. Cragg Vale primary school was successful on the basis of the structural concerns raised in the school’s expression of interest. Independent technical advisers reviewed the information submitted by the local authority and confirmed that a retaining wall had been condemned and posed a risk to the school. The cost of the repair to the retaining wall was priced in line with Priority School Building programme 2 and PDS pricing. However, that would have addressed only the wall, and we could not be confident that it would have addressed the underlying issues causing the movement. The school was classified as having no viable repair, and was therefore escalated to the list. As he will understand, sometimes more significant structural issues are not automatically visible to those of us who are not experts in such matters, so a school may look in a better state superficially, but have a higher condition need.
	We should be clear that the fact that Todmorden and Calder high schools were unsuccessful is not to say that they do not have condition issues that need addressing. We encourage responsible bodies to bid only for their worst blocks, and selection for the programme was made by comparison with other blocks in poor condition. To put that in context, the property data survey holds data on almost 60,000 blocks across England. It is likely that the successful blocks had a combination of very poor condition elements in their building—in other words, failing boilers as well as issues with their external and internal walls.
	PSBP2 is intended to sit alongside, not to replace, the responsibility that local authorities, governing bodies, trustees, dioceses and other bodies have for the maintenance of school buildings in their care. As my hon. Friend will probably know, since 2011 we have made available more than £23 million in capital funding for the provision of new school places and the maintenance of schools in Calderdale. We have announced a further £16 million of funding for 2015 to 2018. Academies in Calderdale have successfully bid for more than £17.5 million in funding through the academies capital maintenance fund, of which about £10 million is for academies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Over the 2011 to 2018 period, Calderdale schools will receive £22 million for the improvement and maintenance of the school estate.
	I understand that Calderdale council is considering using part of the allocations to address some of the issues at Todmorden school. I would encourage it to do
	so, because that is exactly what the money is for. Indeed, the fact that the local authority has put forward these particular schools as part of the bidding process for PBSP2 implies that it must be concerned about their condition. Therefore, they should be a real priority for the money we have allocated to the local authority. We understand that local authorities have competing priorities for their capital resources, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is making the case to Calderdale council for investment in these schools.
	Because of my hon. Friend’s representations to me, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Education Funding Agency, I have asked EFA officials who lead on the delivery of our national school building programme to contact Calderdale council to offer their expertise in the development and procurement of capital schemes. I invite the council and my hon. Friend to make any further and final representations that they wish to make following either my comments or his in this debate.
	In addition, I hope that EFA officials, who are able to offer expertise in the development and procurement of capital schemes, can review the full range of options for addressing the building condition need at Calder high and Todmorden schools. As I have previously said, we are delivering school building projects at a third of the cost of the previous Government's BSF programme, and, if appropriate, we intend to provide Calderdale council with access to the same procurement routes that allow us to deliver such savings. As a local council, it can, if it thinks it appropriate, use the money we have devolved to it to seek to prioritise these schools, and, following the efficient methods of procurement to which the EFA has access, to do so as effectively as possible.
	We want to allow those responsible for the maintenance and improvement of school buildings, such as Calderdale council, to plan well across their estates. It is precisely for that reason that we have, for the first time, provided certainty on school condition allocations over the next three years. That is why my hon. Friend’s local council now has a significant amount of additional money to tackle this need.
	I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the building issues facing schools in his area. I hope that I have explained the process of prioritising schools in the Priority School Building programme. I am sorry that he has so far been disappointed with the results, but I hope that we can work with his local council to deliver the right result for these schools in his constituency.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.